<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 28/01/2022 15:51, Joaquin . via
Dxspider-support wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAHTVWh1-jX1RXQ-_N5Dp=e3v=CHDVNYkv_F7GFa7+u1bwO3j6g@mail.gmail.com">As
you said, you and Dirk carry the weight of the DXCluster
development nowadays. You both have a lot of experience and I'm
sure you could open a dialogue forum in order to look for a new
protocol (say i.e. v2) that could coexist with the current one but
giving it an expiry date, so that the old programs could be
migrated to the new developments.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The forum exists... [cluster-tech]<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAHTVWh1-jX1RXQ-_N5Dp=e3v=CHDVNYkv_F7GFa7+u1bwO3j6g@mail.gmail.com"><br>
I know it's a big job, but you guys have shown that you are up to
it, and I don't think you wouldn't like a challenge like this ;-)<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
It is not, intrinsically, a big job (for me at least). Obviously is
not a short job that can done in two hours either. No, the actual
problem is that some level of compatibility has to be maintained
with older (DXSpider & CC Cluster) nodes and, potentially, this
is where the problems are. It is less of a problem than maintaining
compatibility (as I do) with "old style" AK1A nodes, AR Cluster
stuff anything out there that can process AK1A but not PC92
traffic. But I would avoid putting in a translation layer like I
have had to do for AK1A routing (PC16,17,19,21).<br>
<br>
Even with nodes that do process PC92 traffic, there are issues. For
example not all PC92 A records contain IP addresses. There are
several nodes that use very old versions of DXSpider that do not
send IP addresses. Then there is something that you are familiar
with: webcluster nodes find it difficult to impossible to arrange
for IP addresses to be passed on. And until that problem is fixed in
a way that is easy for webclusters to use, then nothing really moves
forward. There is no concept of a node *proxy* and therefore no
mechanism to deal with such a thing. <br>
<br>
Strangely, hoovering up all the stray sentences that are not dealt
with by PC93 (anything like a talk, announce, chat, wx) is
relatively simple. These include, in order of importance:<br>
<ol>
<li>Spots</li>
<li>wwv, wcy</li>
<li>User information (currently handled by PC41s)</li>
<li>Pings (PC51)</li>
<li>Rcmd & reply (PC34/35). PC84/85 are obsolete clx
rcmd/reply.<br>
</li>
<li>Mail & Bulletins (PC28->33. 43, 49)<br>
</li>
<li>Spot merging (from outside) (PC25) - last seen in 2006<br>
</li>
<li>Remote "database" access (PC37, 44->48) - not used in the
last 20 years<br>
</li>
<li>Here status (PC24), seen but AFAIK not taken any notice of.<br>
</li>
<li>"keepalive" List (PC50 now obsolete)</li>
<li>Miscellaneous PC75 (never seen), PC38 (get remote config)
obsolete (PC92C) and never seen anyway.</li>
</ol>
<p>Of these, items 1-5 would be needed and could be PC94 Spot, Wwv,
wcY, Ping, and rCmd,. Equally, they could all just be merged into
PC93. As they all either announcements or (sort of) directed
talks. <br>
</p>
<p>Item 6 can stay as it is, item 7 is discouraged, 8,10 and 11
dropped and item 9 is effectively dealt with with PC92 A and C.
Or just discouraged as I don't know who or what it's aimed at.</p>
<p>Dirk<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>