= Сообщение: 2326 из 7124 ====================================== FTSC_PUBLIC = От : Markus Reschke 2:240/1661 02 Mar 17 18:33:48 Кому : Rob Swindell 02 Mar 17 18:33:48 Тема : FSP-1040.001 Draft #3 FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=2:240/1661+588251ff На : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=28109.ftsc_pub@1:103/705+1d1cd9d9 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: LATIN1 ================================= ============================================================================== Hi Rob!
Mar 01 12:58 2017, Rob Swindell wrote to All:
RS> To help distinguish between FSC-39.4 and FSC-48 packets, I've RS> introduced the term "Type-2e" to refer to FSC-39.4 packets, while RS> "Type-2+" specifically refers to FSC-48 packets. FSC-39.1 packets RS> (lacking the 'capValid' field) remain without a moniker and are RS> usually just interpretted by software as FTS-1 (Stone Age) packets.
My understanding is the same: FSC-0039 type-2 extended packet header FSC-0048 type-2+ packet header
RS> The fact that neither FSC-39 nor FSC-48 were ever ratified (declared RS> standard) by the FTSC adds to the confusion. Does the FTSC plan to RS> address the fact that the most widespread FidoNet packet format(s) RS> is/are not officially standard?
I'd guess, since both packet formats are optional it's ok the 27 years old documents are FSCs.
RS> Open questions I have: RS> 1. What was the last version of FSC-1 (anyone have a copy or link?) RS> 2. What was the first version of FTS-1 (anyone have a copy or link?) RS> 3. Was there ever a version of FTS-1 (not FSC-1) that lacked zone RS> fields?
