Добро пожаловать, Гость. Пожалуйста авторизуйтесь здесь.
FGHIGate на GaNJa NeTWoRK ST@Ti0N - Просмотр сообщения в эхоконференции FTSC_PUBLIC
Введите FGHI ссылку:


Присутствуют сообщения из эхоконференции FTSC_PUBLIC с датами от 13 Sep 13 18:57:24 до 15 Nov 24 00:30:01, всего сообщений: 7128
Ответить на сообщение К списку сообщений Предыдущее сообщение Следующее сообщение
= Сообщение: 5581 из 7128 ====================================== FTSC_PUBLIC =
От   : andrew clarke                    3:633/267          17 Feb 21 05:36:16
Кому : August Abolins                                      17 Feb 21 05:36:16
Тема : ftsc prod codes
FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=3:633/267+602c10a2
На   : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=2:221/1.58@fidonet+ed7eaf63
= Кодировка сообщения определена как: LATIN1 =================================
==============================================================================
On Tue 2021-02-16 09:20:00, August Abolins (2:221/1.58) wrote to All:

AA> Why do the prod code assignments skip entire sections?

FSC-90 mentions they originally stopped being issued at 0xFD in 1991.

0xFE is reserved for software not yet allocated a code.

0xFF is reserved for software after 1991 that's been allocated a code, but where the actual code is "stored elsewhere in the [FTS-1] packet header at an as yet unallocated offset".

Codes 0x0100 and later in ftscprod.* are all datestamped.

Evidently nothing happened after 1991, until 1995-12-09 when 0x0100 was reserved. This was probably by David Nugent judging from the 3:3/20 address, who I believe was FTSC Chair at the time, and who also wrote FSC-90, and who I actually met at a BBS barbecue around that time. :)

Evidently no progress was made on deciding what the "unallocated offset" would be for FTS-1 Type 2 packet headers. The obvious choice would be to reuse the Baud field, but by 1995 basically everyone had migrated to Type 2+ capable mailers where the the 2+ header allows for 16-bit product codes, so it all became a bit of a moot point.

More 0x01xx codes were issued until 1998-02-16. Initially I thought whoever replaced David didn't properly understand FSC-90 and believed the 0xFF byte should be part of all newly-issued product codes, but apparently 0x0111 and 0x01FF were both issued on the same day (1998-02-16) so that explanation doesn't hold water.

I'm assuming it's for compatibility with... something, but we may never know the real reason. *spooky music*

--- GoldED+/BSD 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: Blizzard of Ozz, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (3:633/267)

К главной странице гейта
Powered by NoSFeRaTU`s FGHIGate
Открытие страницы: 0.056596 секунды