= Сообщение: 2325 из 7124 ====================================== FTSC_PUBLIC = От : Rob Swindell 1:103/705 01 Mar 17 12:58:52 Кому : All 01 Mar 17 12:58:52 Тема : FSP-1040.001 Draft #3 FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=28109.ftsc_pub@1:103/705+1d1cd9d9 На : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=1:3634/12.73+5893bbcc = Кодировка сообщения определена как: ASCII ================================== Ответ: area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=2:240/1661+588251ff ============================================================================== Re: FSP-1040.001 Draft #3 By: mark lewis to Michiel van der Vlist on Thu Feb 02 2017 06:05 pm
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 * Origin: Vertrauen - vert.synchro.net (1:103/705)
