Re: FSP-1040.001 Draft #3
  By: mark lewis to Michiel van der Vlist on Thu Feb 02 2017 06:05 pm

In the vein as FSP-1040, I've tried to capture the FidoNet Type-2* packet
situation on my Wiki at http://wiki.synchro.net/ref:fidonet_packets.

My inspiration was a recent SBBSecho "bug report" in irc.synchro.net
#synchronet by a guy named "oli" who's been doing some research on the subject:
https://gist.github.com/streaps/f7332c321b70e4931fe80a0e52087270

Probably the most contentious issue is my assertion that FSC-39[.4] does not
define the "Type-2+" packet header format (because it lacks the 'auxNet' header
field). I realize that for *many* years *many* folks have been referring to
FSC-39 packets as "Type-2+" (even the FSP-1040 draft does), but I haven't been
able to  find anything in the FTSC documents (or fidonews archives) to justify
this. The first introduction of the term "Type-2+" is in FSC-48.1.

From what I can assertain, FSC-48 defines the Type-2+ header format (based on
the initial work in FSC-39.1) and FSC-48 actually introduces the term "Type-2+"
while FSC-39 just calls its packet format an "extension".

To help distinguish between FSC-39.4 and FSC-48 packets, I've introduced the
term "Type-2e" to refer to FSC-39.4 packets, while "Type-2+" specifically
refers to FSC-48 packets. FSC-39.1 packets (lacking the 'capValid' field)
remain without a moniker and are usually just interpretted by software as FTS-1
(Stone Age) packets.

The fact that neither FSC-39 nor FSC-48 were ever ratified (declared standard)
by the FTSC adds to the confusion. Does the FTSC plan to address the fact that
the most widespread FidoNet packet format(s) is/are not officially standard?

I also trying to reconstruct the Type-2* packet history and determine what
happened when.

Open questions I have:
1. What was the last version of FSC-1 (anyone have a copy or link?)
2. What was the first version of FTS-1 (anyone have a copy or link?)
3. Was there ever a version of FTS-1 (not FSC-1) that lacked zone fields?
--- SBBSecho 3.00-Win32