Hi Frank,

 FV> All this is good and fine. I'd put it forth that the first thing to do
 FV> is look at our current Nodelist format to see what can be done to make
 FV> it more workable with regards to POTS and IP.

 FV> As a thought, What flags do we actually need in the Nodelist??

To maintain operation for existing Fidonet nodes who remain using PSTN for
their connectivity, then nearly every flag has a practical purpose.

 FV> As an example, do we need the v.32, v.34, HST and other flags? 
 FV> In the past, we did need these because modems didn't all handle 
FV> certain settings and such. Today, I'd think that many of these 
 FV> flags are outdated and obsolete. Couldn't we get by with simply;

 FV> CM - Continuous Mail
 FV> MO - No BBS, Mail Only
 FV> X* - Type of Mailer

No. Even if there is no current node using a specific flag, this does not
mean that there never will be such a node. The removal of such a valid flag
could prevent a node from joining in the future. I admit this is highly
unlikely, but we should not build walls where we have gone to the trouble
of ensuring they do not need to be built...

 FV> U(ser) flags could be looked at as well. What do we actually need? Is
 FV> "U,Joe_Bob's_Big_Service_Center_At_the_end_of_the_road"
really needed?
 FV> :-)

In a nutshell, we should not tinker with the current Nodelist format at
all. If data REALLY needs to be added to the Nodelist, then it MUST be done
in a totaly transparent way that will not break ANY existing environment.
To this end, about the only lines that could be added would HAVE to be
comment lines specifically identifiable as new data to only THAT S/W that
needs it and knows how to find it in the Nodelist.


 FV> ;S          V21       CCITT V.21     300 bps   full duplex
   
 FV> ;S          X2S       US Robotics x2 server.

 FV> How many of these are really needed?

Sadly... just about every last darned one of them! They effectively
document most of the known "incompatibilities" that exist in the
PSTN world today, and as long as those technologies are still in use today,
then we HAVE to leave them in there.

 FV> Anyway, just some thoughts. Since in the, not so distant, future,
 FV> there will probably be few, if any, POTS systems left, 

Until 0 PSTN nodes exist, we will still need something like this if we wish
to be able to keep those nodes talking. While >95% of my Fidonet work
uses IP these days, I still have a PSTN line and it is still used by
Fidonet nodes and Human callers...

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

Fidonet has just not figured out how to use it in a way that works well
with the rest of Fidonet. The main reason for this that I see is the
conflict between the Commercial use of the Internet and the
"private" world of Fidonet. Its not a question easily resolved
(IMHO).

Cheers..............pk.


--- Maximus/2 3.01