Hello All..

Why do the prod code assignments skip entire sections?

It starts with..

0000,Fido,MS-DOS,Packer/mailer,Tom_Jennings,1:125/111 0001,Rover,MS-DOS,Packer/mailer,Bob_Hartman,1:104/501 0002,SEAdog,MS-DOS,Packer/mailer,Thom_Henderson,1:107/542.1 0003,WinDog,MS-DOS,Mailer,Solar_Wind_Computing,1:115/333

[etc..] all the way to..

0111,NewsGate,Windows/NT,Packer/Gateway,Leilo_denna_Pietra,2:335/244,19980216

And then the next ones are..

01FF,BBBS,MSDOS/OS2/NT/Amiga/Unix,Mailer/Packer,Kim_Heino,2:22/222,19980216 02FF,NewsGate,Windows/NT,Packer/Gateway,Leilo_denna_Pietra,2:335/244,19980216 03FF,Ravel,Macintosh,Mailer/Packer,Cyril_Moorzin,2:5030/
700,19980310

And so on to..

1DFF,WWIV_BBS,Windows/Linux,Packer,Mark_Hofmann,1:261/1304,20161107 1EFF,CandleBBS,Linux/BSD/Solaris,Mailer/Packer,Dmitry_Komissarov,2:5021/46,20170801

[EOF]

Quite a compact list of FTN progs over the years!
--
../|ug

--- OpenXP 5.0.48
* Origin: (2:221/1.58)

On Tue 2021-02-16 09:20:00, August Abolins (2:221/1.58) wrote to All:

Why do the prod code assignments skip entire sections?

FSC-90 mentions they originally stopped being issued at 0xFD in 1991.

0xFE is reserved for software not yet allocated a code.

0xFF is reserved for software after 1991 that's been allocated a code, but where the actual code is "stored elsewhere in the [FTS-1] packet header at an as yet unallocated offset".

Codes 0x0100 and later in ftscprod.* are all datestamped.

Evidently nothing happened after 1991, until 1995-12-09 when 0x0100 was reserved. This was probably by David Nugent judging from the 3:3/20 address, who I believe was FTSC Chair at the time, and who also wrote FSC-90, and who I actually met at a BBS barbecue around that time. :)

Evidently no progress was made on deciding what the "unallocated offset" would be for FTS-1 Type 2 packet headers. The obvious choice would be to reuse the Baud field, but by 1995 basically everyone had migrated to Type 2+ capable mailers where the the 2+ header allows for 16-bit product codes, so it all became a bit of a moot point.

More 0x01xx codes were issued until 1998-02-16. Initially I thought whoever replaced David didn't properly understand FSC-90 and believed the 0xFF byte should be part of all newly-issued product codes, but apparently 0x0111 and 0x01FF were both issued on the same day (1998-02-16) so that explanation doesn't hold water.

I'm assuming it's for compatibility with... something, but we may never know the real reason. *spooky music*

--- GoldED+/BSD 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: Blizzard of Ozz, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (3:633/267)