From: dawson@willard.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.bbs,comp.bbs.misc
Subject: Re: BBS Standards Committee Formed (mine)
Date: 30 Aug 92 04:12:08 GMT
Organization: Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814

larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:

> leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes:
> 

  I, me, Willard, really said this bit:

> >>Garsh.  What about UUCP/NNTP?  Even if each separate BBS system has a diffe
> >>concept of what the message database resembles locally, why should there be
> >>any work at all left to do with sharing messages?  It is most definitely a
> >>task that should be left to the implementors of (your BBS name here) to eff
> >>a utility that converts outgoing messages to the required form necessary to
> >>work with the existing transport mechanisms.  There's no call to go off and
> >>create a NEW transport standard.
> 
> >Congratulations. With the exception of the fact that they use a standard 
> >FTS defined transport rather than UUCP/NNTP you've just described how Fidone
> >does it. You have a mailer that handles inter-system transport of files
> >and packets(message bundles). You have a "tosser" that moves messages
> >between the Fido packets and the BBS's message format. And of course, you
> >have the BBS itself. 
> 
> An nntp approach would be better in multimachine operations, where as
> one machine would be the message server for the others --  Fidonet (and the
> FTS) is too limited.  It might be find for the typical DOS based BBS -
> but it's not for a high volume usenet distribution hub.   
> 
> -- 
> Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
> keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry

My point was that it makes little sense to go about redefining new transport
standards for network architectures that have not changed.  It makes little
or no sense to talk about transport mechanisms in a discussion of message
database techniques.  All the talk about "BBS standards" has ignored one
simple question... What in the heck are you going to standardize?
Is a single group going to do standards work for all BBS issues?

Supposedly, a meeting of certain BBS systems folks was held at a recent
conference.  Perhaps one of the attendees to that conference would be so kind
as to post what was actually discussed there?  So far, I've seen nothing but
speculation from the network.  Just exactly what sorts of things did you guys
feel ought to be common amongst the various BBS systems?

I'm not for a moment pretending that these issues are going to meet with
agreement in this forum... but our second guessing what others have possibly
already decided amongst themselves leads only to more thrashing, and does
not assist those BBS systems designers here to join, or oppose, this whole
"BBS standards" thing.

It seems rather clear to me that the primary objective for "BBS standards"
would be to enable transparent propagation of messages.  This is already in
place for all systems that adhere to one standard or another.  So, there
are already standards, and there are several of them:  Usenet and Fidonet
are two groups of standards that come to my mind.  Usenet has at least two
methods of standard file transport (whereby messages may be shared), and
more are sure to surface should alternate transport mechanisms be discovered
(telepathy, anyone?).  Should one or all of these be adopted by other,
non-Fido/Usenet BBS systems?  Or, should these recent "BBS standards" folks
dictate to the Fido/Usenet a new format, requiring much code rewriting, as
well as the necessary NEW code that must be introduced to make Wildcat,
PCBoard, et al. "standard"...

The real question, I suppose, is "Why?"  Why are these BBS persons going off
to a BBS conference to form an ad hoc committee on BBS standards?  Are there
really any issues in regards to file transport and message portability that
have not been covered elsewhere?  Perhaps the reason we've not heard anything
from these BBS con. attendees about the proceeds of this meeting (other than
the short [was it Chris Ambler's?] statement concerning the motion to check
out the RFS's) is that no real new progress in standardization was made.

I'm confused, or maybe I just missed the post... who are the actual members
of the newly formed "BBS standards" committee.  By what means can others join
the effort, as new committee members or otherwise?  How may we communicate
with this committee?  When will they next meet, and what will their agenda
be?  Who sponsors their activities, and by what authority will their decisions
be foisted on the BBS world?  Who has the answers to these ponderous questions?


-- 
dawson@willard.UUCP (Willard Dawson)
Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814
Newsgroups: alt.bbs