PK> ..we should not tinker with the current Nodelist format at all..
 PK> ..If data REALLY needs to be added to the Nodelist, then it MUST
 PK> be done in a totaly transparent way..

That imposes far too many limitations, I see no other options than a major
change. As long as all the needed information is included in the new
format, the compatibility issue can be easily solved by a convertion
program that outputs an old style nodelist that can serve as input to the
old software.

There is nothing that stops defining a new file-echo for a new nodelist
format and for a period distribute both the old and the new format in
paralell. That will give all nodes time to upgrade their nodelist compilers
or install a convertion utility. Then the old format can be smoothly phased
out.

 PK> IMHO, Fidonet should be developing a NEW data record format that
 PK> completely replaces the Nodelist, but still keeps Fidonet nodes
 PK> connected. It MUST be flexible (the current Nodelist format is not at
 PK> all very flexible in this case), and be able to work in ways the
 PK> Nodelist was never designed t work. I think this new format already
 PK> exists today, its called DNS.

I don't follow You there, perhaps You can explain with an example? The DNS
system only resolves IP numbers, it does not indicate what services are
available and on what ports they reside. There are also nodes having a
static IP that perhaps not want a DNS for it.

A comma separated list is not very flexible, but instead inherently quite
rigid. A flexible format have to be built on field identifiers, that is the
only way to guarantee future extentions without breaking existent next
generation software.

 Best regards, //Haakan

--- MyPoint Windows 2.03xE