= Сообщение: 2007 из 7124 ====================================== FTSC_PUBLIC = От : Stephen Hurd 1:103/1 09 Mar 16 00:49:11 Кому : mark lewis 09 Mar 16 00:49:11 Тема : FSP-1040.001 draft 1 FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=110.fido-ftscpubl@1:103/1+1b44a975 На : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=1:3634/12.0+6df14cb4 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: CP866 ================================== ============================================================================== Re: FSP-1040.001 draft 1 By: mark lewis to Stephen Hurd on Tue Mar 08 2016 02:22 pm
> SH> There is no documentation I could find on how to set the cost > SH> value of a packet... > > i don't see anything about a cost field in PKT headers so i'm unsure what > you mean byt the "cost value of a packet"...
Whoops, not sure what I was thinking with this reply. I'm off my rocker apparently.
> SH> There's not even any documentation of what the cost represents. > > all i see is "in lowest unit of originator's currency" and the only thing i > can fathom that would be related to that is the cost of transporting that > single message from the current system to the next system... especially in > light of this all having been developed using POTS connections which were > not cheap... it was a feature whereby the operator could specify in their > mail events that messages with a cost <= X could be transmitted during > eventA and messages with a cost value greater than X would be held for > another event which would qualify them for transmission...
A reasonable assumption, but the FTSC is supposed to document common practice. The common practice here is to set the field to zero. Documenting what it's not used for doesn't seem in keeping with the mandate of an FTS.
> SH> I could add that it's the expected cost the sender bears for > SH> delivery of the packet, > > yes... > > SH> but it's not clear if it's sender costs, receiver costs, > > the sender has no clue what the receiver's cost is...
That's not universally true. Back In The Day, it wasn't unusual for sysops to negotiate extensively and cost share. The cost field would be set to the total cost.
Also, the "cost" was often variable depending on how/when it was incurred. Even the scenario you put forward where certain times would allow different costs was because the cost was lower at certain time. The cost was therefore *not* the cost to deliver the message, but the cost to deliver the message during the high-rate period.
If I pack a message a 2:00am, the cost field is unlikely to be different than if I pack it at noon.
> it always seemed obvious to me because of operator set values in mailers and > bbs packages and those being specifically referenced to be the cost of the > POTS connection...
And when there was variable cost, or when a cost-sharing system was used, this was an inaccurate guess, not the actual cost in currency. The values ended up being disconnected from cost in currency and simply used as a weight.
So, at the end of it all, how is the cost field *currently used* on Fidonet aside from "usually set to zero", and what sort of SHOULD clauses should be added?
Saying it SHOULD be set modified before forwarding, or SHOULD be ignored on import, or anything else seems to imply usage that doesn't really exist on Fidonet today. --- SBBSecho 2.32-FreeBSD * Origin: BBSDev.net - The BBS Developers Network (1:103/1)
