# A Type-2 Packet Extension Proposal.

    Document: FSC-0039
    Version:  04
    Date:     29-Sep-90

                          A Type-2 Packet Extension Proposal
                           Mark A. Howard 1:260/340@FidoNet

      Status of this document:
      ------------------------
      This FSC suggests a proposed protocol for the FidoNet(r) community,
      and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.  Distribution
      of this document is unlimited.

      Fido and FidoNet are registered marks of Tom Jennings and Fido Software.
      FTS-0001 is a copyrighted work of Randy Bush.

      Introduction
      ------------
      This document serves two major purposes.  The first is an attempt to define
      and document the Type-2 packet which is widely in use in FidoNet today.
      Although FTS-0001 defines the structure of a Type-2 packet, the natural
      evolution of our network, mostly with regards to addressing methodology,
      has made it necessary to utilize hitherto unused portions of the header
      to insert Zone and Point information.  Also, it has become apparent that
      some of the existing fields are not large enough to accomplish their
      original tasks.

      The second is to propose a simple mechanism to allow FidoNet to begin to
      utilize advanced mail packing techniques.  It is quite apparent that while
      Type-2 has served us faithfully for some time now, the evolution of our
      network in terms of technical and physical complexity has caused us to
      consider more efficient and functional ways to pack mail.

      It should be made clear that with the exception of the Capability Word,
      Capability Word Validation Copy, ProductCode(hi), and Revision(minor),
      which are proposed extensions to the Type-2 packet header, this FSC is
      an attempt to correctly document existing practices with regards to the
      insertion of zone and point info by at least three mail processors in
      use today.

      The Type-2 Header (Where's the Zone?)
      -------------------------------------
      Although FTS-0001 has recently been updated to reflect the use of some of
      the areas in the packed message header for zone data, at least two other
      methods for inserting the zone information have been adopted, making it
      necessary to provide support for both formats in all of the zone aware mail
      processors.  The end result is more code, and redundant information in the
      packet header.

      This has presented a problem in logistics, as it is difficult to consider
      the project of updating mail processors using one type to use the other.
      As sufficient indentification is provided, in the form of the product code,
      to determine the expected location of the zone information, and because
      code already exists in most of the mail processors to overcome this, this
      proposal does not attempt to suggest that one method be used over the
      other, rather the intent is to attempt to document the extensions in use,
      and the products involved.

      See the accompanying chart and cross-reference.

      The Product Code
      ----------------
      Based upon the current rate of requests for product codes from the FTSC,
      it is probable that the Product Code byte will not be large enough to
      accomodate all of the codes required.  While it is not reasonable to
      expect that all Type-2 processors will eventually check the hi-order byte
      proposed here, it is likely that 'current' mail processors will.  This
      can be nothing but benefical, as it will force users to upgrade their
      mail processors to a product which will as a minimum, support Type-2
      with Zone and Point extensions, and quite possibly, processors that will
      utilize more advanced mail packing techniques, making Type-2 extinct once
      and for all.

      The Capability Word  (How do we GET there from here?)
      -----------------------------------------------------
      Everybody would like to see more efficient and functional ways to pack and
      exchange mail.  Several Type-3 message bundle proposals exist, but none
      really address a problem which must be solved first.  The problem is that
      since FidoNet is a hobbyist network, no demands can be placed on any one
      sysop to upgrade or change their bundling software.  Because of this, it
      is necessary to consider strategies which allow for the existence of Type-2
      bundlers in the network topology.

      Considerable advantages can be realized, however, between systems that
      consent to use advanced bundling techniques.  One way to do this is to
      simply send netmail to all of your connecting systems, saying "Hey, I've
      got a Type-3 bundler now, how about you?"  This could become quite
      tiresome, and does not represent much of an improvement on the current
      situation.

      What would be desirable is a network that would 'upgrade itself'.  Given a
      situation where mail processors of various capabilities will exist in a
      network topology, the goal is to provide a mechanism whereby two links can
      determine and utilize the most efficient bundling method to use, in a
      manner transparent to the sysop.

      For instance, let's say that the FTSC releases the Type-7 All New Singing
      and Dancing bundle format.  Well, your current version of SlingToss can
      only support Types 2, 3, and 5.  One of your downlinks gets a new version
      of MailMangle which can support Types 2, 3, 4, and 7.  Well, it is quite
      obvious that since you and he are exchanging 4 megs of mail each night,
      and it's an overseas call, that it would be in your interest to obtain a
      new version of SlingToss which can support Type 7.

      Note that this is *optional*.  Because both processors can support Type-3,
      they will continue to exchange Type-3 mail quite happily, even though
      MailMangle is happily advertising the availability of Type-7.  Even your
      downlinks which are still using stone-age Type-2 processors will be fine,
      as SlingToss will always export Type-2 bundles when no higher capability
      can be determined.

      So, after dashing off the check to the author, your new version of
      SlingToss comes in the mail!  You rush over to your system, and install it.
      The next time SlingToss exports mail to the MailMangle system, it says
      "Hey!  I can now support Type 2, 3, 5, and 7!  So, whattya got?"  This is
      no skin off MailMangle's nose, he's had Type-7 for quite a while, and he
      begins to export Type-7 bundles to SlingToss.  "It's about time.", he says.

      Now, this scenario is made possible by implementing a 'Capability Word' in
      the present and future packet headers.  The Capability Update mechanism
      depends on several assumptions:

      1)   Any Advanced Capability Bundler *MUST* be capable of receiving and
         faithfully processing Type-2 bundles.  Hopefully, the inbound packets
         will be in the new format proposed by this document, but then again,
         this is not an exact science.  What this means is that it is likely
         that some packets may arrive with the Capability Word (CW) set to 0.
         In this case, Type-2 is assumed, assuring compatibility.  The only
         caveat is that it is conceivable that some obscure mail processor
         uses the location proposed for the CW for other arcane purposes.  This
    |    can detected through the CWValidation Copy, which is byte-swapped and
    |    compared with the CW at that time.  If a mismatch is found, a CW of
    |    type 0 is assumed, and a Type-2 bundling method is used.

      2) An Advanced Capability Bundler, hereafter referred to as a Type-N
         Bundler, must have a method to store and maintain the node-by-node
         capability information.  This can be done many ways, and in fact
         several processors already have begun to maintain node information
         outside of that found in AREAS.BBS, mostly to implement pre-arranged
         alternate compression methods.  In a text configuration file, you
         might see the following:

         ;       Address      Comp    Send  LastCW ; Comments
         Node    1:260/340    ZIP     Auto  7      ; Auto detect & upgrade
         Node    1:135/20     LZH     3     2,3,7  ; Always send Type-3
         Node    1:           ARC     2     0      ; Stone-Age processor
         Node    1:135/4      ---     Auto  7      ; Sent me netmail
         Node    1:           ---     0     0      ; Don't send CW

         In this example, the fields are:

         Address - downlink address.  Note that this is not necessarily
                   relative to echomail, only, it is possible to append
                   information to the node database as netmail packets are
                   receieved from different addresses.

         Comp    - desired mail compression method.

         Send    - Auto - automatically determined maximum common packing
                          method to use.  Automatically update to LastCW
                          when packing.

         LastCW  - Last CW received from remote system.

      3) A Type-N Bundle will always advertise it's capabilities in the CW
         regardless of the type being sent.  As shown in the above example,
         it allows Type-N processors to automatically track the capability
         of your system.  Again, in cases where a stone-age processor is
         being used, this field will be ignored, and in the unusual event
         that it is not ignored, and is somehow harmful to the far system,
         the Type-N processor can be configured to send a CW of 0.

      The format of the Capability Word is designed to support up to 15 future
      bundle types, and is bit-mapped to facilitate the easy determination of
      the maximum common level supported between two nodes:

                     msb           Capability Word               lsb
      Node Supports  ------------FTSC Type Supported----------------

                      U 16 15 14 13 12 11 10  9  8  7  6  5  4  3  2

      2, 3, and 7     0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  0  0  0  1  1
      2, 3, and 5     0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  0  1  1
      2 (this FSC)    0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1
      Stone Age**     0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0
                      ^
                      +--- Indicates UseNet RFC-822 capability

                      ** - a mismatch in the CWValidation Copy also
                           produces a CW=0.

      In this example, the Type-N bundler would first compare the remote CW
    | and the byte-swapped remote CWValidation Copy, and check for a mismatch.
      Prior to the compare, the MSB of the CW's are masked, as this bit is
      reserved to indicate whether the mail processor is capable of also
      accepting UseNet RFC-822 bundles.  Following the MSB mask, and bit
      comparison, if they do not match, a remote CW of 0 is assumed.  If they
      match, the Type-N processor would AND the local and remote CW words,
      obtaining a CW expressing the Types which are in common to both systems.
      The most significant Type will be used, by default, but note that this
      assumes that new bundling Types will be increasingly more efficient or
      in some way more beneficial.

      Because this may not always be the case, there should be a method provided,
      as illustrated above, to override the automatic upgrade should this become
      the case.

      The MSB of the CW is used to indicate whether the mail processor can accept
      UseNet RFC-822 bundles or not.  It is a separate indicator, and not intended
      to be used as a part of the above comparison, however can be used to also
      advertise RFC-822 capability to other systems.  Since RFC-822 is 'set in
      stone', there is no need to assign more than one capability bit.

      It might seem somewhat limiting to only consider the possibility of 15
      different future bundling methods, but it is my opinion that the careful
      use of a 'Sub-Type' byte in the packet header can allow for the variations
      on a single theme, and that proposals for new formats should be evaluated
      by the FTSC to determine whether sufficient benefit can be realized in
      the implementation of the given format, prior to assigning a new type
      code.

      Mailers
      -------
      It is quite clear to me that should this concept take hold, that the
      logical place to store node capability data is in the local nodelist
      database, or an index-associated data file.  As above, it is necessary
      to generate Type-2 packets for whatever purpose, unless it is known
      by prior association, that the far mailer can accept other types of
      packets.  It is also quite reasonable to assume that a nodelist flag
      could be assigned to advertise the CW for a given node, which the
      native mailer nodelist compiler could then immediately determine the
      preferred bundling method for any given node in FidoNet.

      Another possibility would be to pass a capability advertisement in the
      extensible portion of a handshake protocol, which may or may not already
      exist in FidoNet.

      The approach suggested previously in this document suggests the use of
      a text configuration file, but it is quite obvious that many benefits
      can be realized through the use of the nodelist, including the use of
      additional flags to indicate the preferred compression method, etc.

      Summary
      -------
      This document has been created in an attempt to define a method to allow
      the future expansion and enhancement of FidoNet technology mail processors
      and mailers, and in a way that is the least disruptive to existing mail
      operations.  The intent is to provide for an environment that is as open,
      and extensible as possible.

      The mechanism described should allow many different types of processors
      (FTSC-registered) to exist in the network at once, and to provide an
      environment which is designed to operate at it's maximum efficiency
      wherever possible or practical.

      Revision 2 of this document was produced to implement suggestions made
      primarily by Jan Vroonhof, who suggested the use of the CW Validation
      Copy.  Jan presented this idea in his FSC-0048, along with other concepts
      relating to the correct indentification and handling of zone and point
      addressing.   This document sanctions the improvements to the CW as
      recommended, but does not address or support the other extensions
      recommended in FSC-0048.

      Thanks
      ------
      To Ward Christensen, creator of XModem and BYE.

         Tom Jennings, who started this whole mess.

         Joaquim Homrighausen, for lots of good ideas, and motivation.  Here's
                               another Lamborghini to work on.

         Wynn Wagner, Oliver McDonald, Roeland Meyer, Andrew Farmer, Claude
         Warren, Jan Vroonhof, Bob Hartman, and Vince Perriello, who all
         contributed in some way to the creation of this document, mostly
         through their messages in NET_DEV.

      Type-2 Packet Format (proposed, but currently in use)
      -----------------------------------------------------
        Field    Ofs Siz Type  Description                Expected value(s)
        -------  --- --- ----  -------------------------- -----------------
        OrgNode  0x0   2 Word  Origination node address   0-65535
        DstNode    2   2 Word  Destination node address   1-65535
        Year       4   2  Int  Year packet generated      19??-2???
        Month      6   2  Int  Month  "        "          0-11 (0=Jan)
        Day        8   2  Int  Day    "        "          1-31
        Hour       A   2  Int  Hour   "        "          0-23
        Min        C   2  Int  Minute "        "          0-59
        Sec        E   2  Int  Second "        "          0-59
        Baud      10   2  Int  Baud Rate (not in use)     ????
        PktVer    12   2  Int  Packet Version             Always 2
        OrgNet    14   2 Word  Origination net address    1-65535
        DstNet    16   2 Word  Destination net address    1-65535
        PrdCodL   18   1 Byte  FTSC Product Code     (lo) 1-255
      * PVMajor   19   1 Byte  FTSC Product Rev   (major) 1-255
        Password  1A   8 Char  Packet password            A-Z,0-9
      * QOrgZone  22   2  Int  Orig Zone (ZMailQ,QMail)   1-65535
      * QDstZone  24   2  Int  Dest Zone (ZMailQ,QMail)   1-65535
        Filler    26   2 Byte  Spare Change               ?
    | * CapValid  28   2 Word  CW Byte-Swapped Valid Copy BitField
      * PrdCodH   2A   1 Byte  FTSC Product Code     (hi) 1-255
      * PVMinor   2B   1 Byte  FTSC Product Rev   (minor) 1-255
      * CapWord   2C   2 Word  Capability Word            BitField
      * OrigZone  2E   2  Int  Origination Zone           1-65535
      * DestZone  30   2  Int  Destination Zone           1-65535
      * OrigPoint 32   2  Int  Origination Point          1-65535
      * DestPoint 34   2  Int  Destination Point          1-65535
      * ProdData  36   4 Long  Product-specific data      Whatever
        PktTerm   3A   2 Word  Packet terminator          0000

      * - extensions to FTS-0001

      Ofs, Siz are in hex, other values are decimal.

      Zone/Point Aware Mail Processors (probably a partial list)
      ----------------------------------------------------------
        Prod
        Code Name - Uses QOrg/QDstZone Orig/DestZone Orig/DestPoint
        ---- ----------- ------------- ------------- --------------
        0x0C  FrontDoor  Reads/Updates      Yes           Yes
        0x1A  DBridge        ?????          Yes           Yes
        0x45  XRS        Reads/Updates      Yes           Yes
        0x29  QMail           Yes          ?????      Not point-aware
        0x35  ZMailQ          Yes          ?????      Not point-aware
        0x3F  TosScan    Reads/Updates      Yes           Yes

Go Back