TZUTC: -0500   
   MSGID: 7614.asian_li@1:275/100 245488e7   
   REPLY: 1:153/7001 5fe7b0f6   
   PID: Synchronet 3.14a-Win32  Dec 31 2006 MSC 1200   
   TID: SBBSecho 2.11-Win32 r1.182 Dec 31 2006 MSC 1200   
     Re: slightly different format   
     By: Maurice Kinal to Carol Shenkenberger on Sat Dec 26 2020 09:53 pm   
      
    > -={ Corrected DateTime for those in the know: 2020-12-26 21:53:58 +0000 }=-   
    >    
    > Hey Carol!   
    >    
    >  > ... Werig sceal se wiþ winde roweþ.   
    >  >     Weary shall he be who rows against the wind.   
    >    
    >  CS> Hehehe,   
    >    
    > Truer words were never spoken even after well over 1000 years have gone by.   
    > Did Anglo-Saxons have fidonet nodes?  If so then I think I give new meaning    
    > backwards compatibilty.   
    >    
    >  CS> here's a little secret.  Anyone can make a proposal.  It just   
    >  CS> doesn't get changed to a 'standard' unless widely in use.   
    >    
    > So I've noticed.  What do you think my odds are?  So far I've only heard the   
    > word 'impossible' which is probably what motivated me to take the chance.  A   
    > without the election being called I thought I'd give it a shot if for no oth   
    > reson than to increase the traffic here, and on that count I think I might h   
    > outdone even an election here would have on this regard.   
    >    
    > And on that note I believe I am a winner.  :-)   
    >    
    > Life is good,   
    > Maurice   
    >    
    > ... Don't cry for me I have vi.   
      
   Well, from what I see it's the normal resistance, mostly because the approach   
   was more like 'asking them' so got the problems.  The way to do it is write it,   
   then leave room for a cross compatible (back compatible) mode as a 3rd party   
   utility.  Best to make one for that too along with it.  Open source it and has   
   a chance, then make proposal.   
      
   It's not for the FTSC to deny a *proposal*.  It's only for them to document   
   when it becomes a STANDARD.   
      
   Eventually proposals go to a backup library if not used.  The only ones that   
   completely went away seem to be the FAQ series, which *documented* existing   
   standards but was never a proposal (it was due to be written to one but was   
   deleted somewhere between 2006-2008 it seems).   
      
   Recently recovered a partial document that clearly was my own wording (hard for   
   me to not recognize my own) but had other edits in another's style added to it.   
   Possibly Ozzy Nixon?  Not sure.   
      
   Planning to do some work on it this weekend.   
      
   All the document does is piece together some of the variety in nodelist   
   'styles' into a preferred format easier for developers to base nodelist tools   
   on.  For ex:  Special ports go after the Connectivity tab (IBN etc.) and INA   
   carries no port but has the FQDN.  FQDN for a specific connection can be added   
   after connecitvity port if different from INA and in which case by preference,   
   over rides INA when using that connection protocol.   
      
     xxcarol   
   --- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32   
    * Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS, shenks.synchro.net (1:275/100)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/123 15/0 18/200 19/36 90/1 105/81 106/127 201 116/18 120/340   
   SEEN-BY: 123/131 140 124/5016 153/105 135 757 802 6809 7001 7715 154/10   
   SEEN-BY: 203/0 218/700 221/0 1 6 360 222/2 226/30 227/114 229/101   
   SEEN-BY: 229/424 426 452 664 1016 230/0 150 152 240/1120 2100 5138   
   SEEN-BY: 240/5411 5832 5853 249/206 317 400 250/1 261/38 100 1466   
   SEEN-BY: 266/512 267/155 275/0 89 91 93 95 96 98 99 100 101 201 301   
   SEEN-BY: 280/464 5003 282/1031 1056 288/100 291/100 111 292/8125 310/31   
   SEEN-BY: 317/3 320/119 219 322/757 335/364 340/400 341/66 342/17 200   
   SEEN-BY: 396/45 423/81 120 460/58 633/280 640/1321 712/848 770/1 801/161   
   SEEN-BY: 801/189 2320/105 2454/119 3634/12 4500/1 5020/715 1042   
   PATH: 275/100 261/38 153/757 221/6 1 280/464 240/5832 229/426