[aprssig] Tier 2 Status

[Steve Dimse]

On Jun 22, 2006, at 9:47 AM, AE5PL Lists wrote:

> No, but you do control whether they get a "core" DNS name.  You have
> made it clear to the core sysops that you, and only you, control that.
> Period.

Huh? Would you care to cite a source for that? Anyone that the core  
sysops are willing to configure into the core is very welcome by me.  
There was an attempt to add fourth a while back, I certainly  
cooperated fully with that, unfortunately the person was unable to  
make the hub software work correctly because of problems with the  
Java VM, and withdrew. That is the only time since the tier two  
concept started anyone has asked for a core name.

> I can name a number of times in the past "8 years 11 months" that you
> have not given out a CORE DNS name.

Then name them. It has never happened!
>
>> can't, I demand an apology for this unjustified attack on my
>> stewardship of the aprs.net domain.
>
> Only when you apologize for misrepresenting the facts.

You have yet to produce any such incident, and I deny that any occurred.
>
> No, it is part of the core mesh but not a core server.  You can run
> around this all you want Steve, but you are the person that  
> controls the
> domain.  You are the person that says "I will add you as a core  
> server".
> You no longer manage the core sysops but they have always been willing
> to work with whoever you brought to the table as a fourth server.

As you state, I am not in the operational loop of the APRS IS. It is  
not my place to bring people to the table. I certainly will not add a  
name to the rotation that is not yet functional, but as soon as it is  
I add it.

> Do
> not blame them.  Do not blame me.

I am not blaming anyone. The only accusations being made are by you!

> If anyone should be apologizing, it
> should be you for such blatant misrepresentations.

You sir are the one misrepresenting the facts, you are the one making  
unfound accusations. Again, I challenge you to produce any time that  
I ever refused to give a core name to a properly configured hub!  
Otherwise, even if you refuse to admit your accusations are baseless,  
people here will see them and you for what they are!
>
>> would get more traffic with the name changes, but it is not
>> the name that makes it a core server. And as I say, I would
>> never not update the aprs.net name. Never have, never will.
>
> Yes you have.  In fact, when javAPRSSrvr was first being developed in
> 2002, you took away third.aprs.net from Jon Arnold because he was  
> using
> it and you didn't like some of what it did at the time.

There have been times when I have removed servers that were not  
functioning correctly. As I recall, this particular incident was  
because this server did not provide port 23, and was causing problems  
with people expecting to have that port available on a core server.  
Without port 23, it is not configured as a core server, and therefore  
should not have a core name.

> I can name
> other times where you have not added a _core_ DNS name but you look
> silly enough as it is.

You took a debate over network architecture and turned it into a  
personal attack. Fortunately people here are pretty intelligent, I  
think they can see who is looking silly!

Steve  K4HG