| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 11.06.04 10:07l 759 Lines 29437 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 3431-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Jun 05, 7/8
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<ZL3VML
Sent: 040611/0701Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:25632 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:3431-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: [APRS_HF] Frequency Errors [Was: 30 Meter Policing needed.]
From: Dale Blanchard <wa7ixk@arrl.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 16:04:32 -0700
X-Message-Number: 115
Stephen H. Smith wrote:
> 10.147.100 + 2.300 = 10.149.400
>
>
>Note that some HF radios with "DATA" or "FSK" modes offset the indicated
>dial frequency to correct for the difference between the suppressed
>carrier freq and the actual mark frequency, typically assuming the lower
>tone is 2125 Hz (or sometimes 1800 Hz). This will force you to compute
>offsets different from what I have listed for LSB/USB.
>
>AGAIN: Quoting "dial frequency" alone is ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS unless
>you qualify it with mode (USB/LSB/DATA, etc) and the AUDIO tone freqs in
>question.
>
>So were do I set my FT-817 with a TT-3/300b
I want to make some tests in the wilds of Idaho.
With 5 watts it may not make any difference.
I may have to put in a TXO. But i can not get any specs on how good it is.
I will be between 35 and 110 degrees F. The TXO is only rate it at 25 C
But my failures are the most exciting thing I have to look forward to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Two more balloon flights
From: Dale Blanchard <wa7ixk@arrl.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 16:06:19 -0700
X-Message-Number: 116
Russ Chadwick wrote:
>There'll be two balloon launches tomorrow morning, but they probably won't
>generate as much aprssig traffic as the one a few days ago did. At least,
>I hope not :-)
>
>Why do not they launch anything from the West coast so others can track them ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: PK-900 as a digi
From: "Bill Carreira [W1KFR]" <w1kfr@tds.net>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 19:14:06 -0400
X-Message-Number: 117
Heelo:
Does anybody out there use a PK-900 as a digi? If so I need some help for
the Nassau County FL digi that is using that TNC. If the TNC needs and
update please advise this is an old TNC.
Thanks
W1KFR
President CCARS
Kingsland, GA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: NWS for WinAPRS 275 question
From: "Christensen, Eric" <CHRISTENSENE@MAIL.ECU.EDU>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 19:29:55 -0400
X-Message-Number: 118
Ben,
I'll attempt to answer part of your question as I am no longer a WinAPRS
user. NWS bulletins are being sent out onto the IS by Dale down in Florida.
You can get additional information at www.wxsvr.org. In some locations,
these bulletins are sent out over the air by I-Gates.
Below is from the help file of UI-View which details which files should be
downloaded. Now whether WinAPRS supports NWS bulletins or not, I cannot
answer as I UPGRADED many moons ago.
<QUOTE>
Downloading The Shapefiles
To be able to use UI-NWS, you need the NWS shapefiles for counties, zones
and marine zones. UI-NWS is useless without these files. They are the
shapefile sets prefixed "c_", "z_" and "mz". Each set contains three files -
..DBF, .SHP and .SHX.
If you have already downloaded these shapefiles for use with other software,
then you can use your existing files. Otherwise, you need to download them
from the NWS site. The starting page is http://www.nws.noaa.gov/geodata/
The files seem to be frequently updated, so the direct URLs for the latest
versions change, but if you start at the above page, you can find the files
by following these links. NOTE - Read the following carefully! The wording
of the link names is correct, but an awful lot of users seem to assume that
I have made a mistake, and so download the wrong files.
Zones
NWSI Libraries: Zone Forecast Areas, and then Public Forecast Zones
(CONUS/OCONUS), Download Compressed shapefile.
Marine zones
NWSI Libraries: Coastal And Offshore Marine Zones, and then Coastal
Marine Zones including the Great Lakes, Download Compressed shapefile.
Counties
County Libraries: AWIPS Counties, and then US Counties (CONUS/OCONUS),
Download Compressed shapefile.
NOTE - To get to this link, you have to scroll down the page! It is NOT the
'County Warning Areas' link near the top of the page!
</QUOTE>
73s,
Eric KF4OTN
kf4otn@amsat.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: 30 Meter Policing needed.
From: Arte Booten <n2zrc@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:36:28 -0400
X-Message-Number: 119
Hi all,
Glenn W. wrote:
>I've been running a 30m station for years. ... am I on frequency?
Years ago several HF APRS stations were designated to be "zero-beat",
that is, they were tuned accurately with stable rigs and could be used as a
tuning aid to others. Among these were W3ADO's 30-meter station. Do these
stations still hold to that standard, and can they still be used as such?73
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Mr. Arthur "Arte" Booten !>>ReMoVe .n0sPaM<<! <n2zrc.n0sPaM@arrl.net>|
|Official Emergency Station NYC ARES/ Bronx County Radio Officer NYC RACES|
|Riverdale, New York 10463 [FN30bv] !4052.71N/07354.06WNPHG5370/A=00240|
|PGP Key Fingerprint: 90B6 9236 A783 2C3C E08B DDCB 2F12 AE42 410B A7A8|
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The OpenTrac Debate and BS!
From: "Christensen, Eric" <CHRISTENSENE@MAIL.ECU.EDU>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 19:42:13 -0400
X-Message-Number: 120
What, exactly, needs to happen to get the APRS-WG back in operation?
73s,
Eric KF4OTN
kf4otn@amsat.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Two more balloon flights
From: "Russ Chadwick" <russ@wxqa.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 23:58:19 -0000
X-Message-Number: 121
Hi Dale,
EOSS is a group of ham volunteers who can only launch balloons on the
weekends. California is just too long a drive from Colorado. However, next
month we are going to drive to Kansas to participare in the Great Plains
Super Launch. There'll be a lot of APRS-equipped ballons in the air on July
4.
Russ KB0TVJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: 30 Meter Policing needed.
From: "Germino" <mgermino@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 17:13:52 -0700
X-Message-Number: 122
With PSK31 I tune to WWV and switch between USB and LSB moving the frequency
until the line on the waterfall doesn't move.
Mike
73, AD6AA
>Hi all,
>
>Glenn W. wrote:
>
>>I've been running a 30m station for years. ... am I on frequency?
>
>Years ago several HF APRS stations were designated to be "zero-beat",
>that is, they were tuned accurately with stable rigs and could be used as a
>tuning aid to others. Among these were W3ADO's 30-meter station. Do these
>stations still hold to that standard, and can they still be used as such?73
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Two more balloon flights
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@3xf.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 17:15:28 -0700
X-Message-Number: 123
The Cal Poly (SLO) radio club launched one not too long ago, from somewhere
out in the vicinity of Maricopa if I recall. I'm hoping they'll do some
more, but they don't seem to publicize them very widely.
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Two more balloon flights
From: "Kurt O. Jauss" <kf6hjo@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 17:38:56 -0700
X-Message-Number: 124
A group of us here in the Central Valley of California planned to
get one up last spring, however time got away from us. And as several of
us are farmers.... it looks like next fall will be our target date.
After harvest of course!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Two more balloon flights
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@3xf.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 17:52:18 -0700
X-Message-Number: 125
Let me know if you need chasers. I don't think they usually blow this way
(toward the coast), but I'll probably wind up driving out there to see it
anyway.
I've got a K-size cylinder of helium in the garage to contribute to the
effort. Got maybe 150 cu/ft left at the moment.
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Wanted: PIC code to gen tones
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@3xf.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 17:53:04 -0700
X-Message-Number: 126
>Will Clement's AX.25 MIM/MIC-E way back when, used the PWM to
>generate a signwave. You run it through a low pass filter, run the PWM quite
>high, and use the average voltage level, which is based on duty cycle, to
>emulate your D to A.
One thing I'll have to say for PWM... it certainly makes life interesting
when it comes time to debug! I'm currently working on getting the
OpenTracker's D/A up to a resolution suitable for PSK31 generation. You
wouldn't think it'd be that tricky.. for now, all it does is generate a 500
hz tone. Or at least, that's what it's supposed to be doing. This is what
it actually puts out:
http://n1vg.net/opentracker/psk31-pwm.gif
I have no idea where that squiggle at the bottom of the waveform is coming
from, and the notch at the peak I seem to have introduced in trying to fix
it.
This would be a perfect job for a mixed-mode logic analyzer. Unfortunately,
my old HP 1630G doesn't have the analog option. And staring at the digital
PWM output is enough to give you a headache really quick. I'll probably end
up adding some debug outputs on spare I/O pins as markers at various places
in the loop, and try to see what's going on.
Anyway, the moral of the story is to make sure you've got your waveform code
working right with a simple R ladder or parallel D/A before switching to a
PWM mode...
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The OpenTrac Debate and BS!
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 21:13:58 -0400
X-Message-Number: 127
On 6/5/04 at 7:42 PM Christensen, Eric <CHRISTENSENE@MAIL.ECU.EDU> sent:
>What, exactly, needs to happen to get the APRS-WG back in operation?
The function of the APRS WG is to steward the APRS Spec. If someone outside
the APRS WG has a change they wish to have made, they need to get someone
within the APRS WG to champion the issue.
A US citizen cannot fly to Washington DC and demand a vote on a law he
wrote...they must get someone within congress to sponsor the bill.
Unfortunately, when people present a change they want in the APRS Spec
either here or on the protocol list, and cannot get an APRS WG member
interested in making the change, you are likely hear rhetoric to the effect
that the APRS WG isn't doing anything, or they have the not-invented-here
syndrome. The reality is they consider APRS a working system, are loathe
to risk chaos, and do not find the proposal worth the risk. Doing nothing
is a decision in itself, and when nothing gets done on a proposal, that
alone is the no vote from the APRS WG.
Of course, you hear the same rhetoric from any group that is unable to get
congress to approve their pet bills...
The thing is, for better or worse, most people on the APRS WG place the
integrity of the system first...there is strong emphasis on backwards
compatibility. Since the spec was published, I do not recall seeing one
proposal which I would have considered pressing enough to be worth the risk
to the system.
Sure, I think, as I think most of the people in the APRS WG think, that the
APRS protocol is a maze of kludges. Writing a parser is hell. findU's
parser is four years old and there are still bugs. I think most of us could
design a better protocol with the benefit of hindsight. However, to add or
change anything that affects backwards capability would require a very
compelling reason. Making parsing code look prettier is simply not
compelling enough.
Other than these rewrite proposals, most people want to add something to
the spec. The user defined format provides a means for anyone, without APRS
WG approval, to add their own data to the system. This was done
specifically to encourage experimentation and to prevent the APRS WG from
holding it back in any way.
The argument I see pressed most often from opentrack people is that the
APRS spec is ugly, and their protocol is better designed and easier to
parse. I admit I haven't looked closeely at it, it very well may be, but
the fact is that unless you can upgrade everything in APRS simultaneously,
adding parsing for their protocol worstens the parsing problem, as would
any other attempt to modernize the system. No one I've talked to on the
APRS WG has shown any interest in causing a period of upheaval that would
affect all APRS users, for the benefit of making future programmer's lives
easier.
Despite the innuendo, no one is telling anyone they cannot experiment. All
Bob, myself, and others are saying is that it is not appropriate to do this
experimentation on top of a working system.
And anyone that has a proposal for a change in the spec that cannot be
accomodated by the user defined protocol needs to get someone on the APRS
WG to sponsor the proposal...if you cannot get one person on your side, how
can you expect to win a vote?
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The OpenTrac Debate and BS!
From: Danny <danny@messano.net>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 21:21:47 -0400
X-Message-Number: 128
The APRS-WG was a very closed group. I'd like to see something short of
3000 people, but a little more than the closed group of the past.
IMO, If we had many more people involved, we may still have an active WG.
I think it was the inability of the handful of those involved to agree to
anything more than the 1.0 spec that led to it becoming stale. Like most,
I was not involved in the closed workings of the WG. Most of what the
public saw was the "spill over" from the WG that ended up on the sig. What
we saw wasn't pretty.. I am amazed we even got a 1.0 spec.
Danny Messano
KE4RAP
Saturday, June 5, 2004, 7:42:13 PM, you wrote:
CE> What, exactly, needs to happen to get the APRS-WG back in operation?
CE> 73s,
CE> Eric KF4OTN
CE> kf4otn@amsat.org
--
Danny
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The OpenTrac Debate and BS!
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 21:41:32 -0400
X-Message-Number: 129
On 6/5/04 at 9:21 PM Danny <danny@messano.net> sent:
>The APRS-WG was a very closed group. I'd like to see something short of 3000
>people, but a little more than the closed group of the past.
What exactly do you want the APRS WG to approve of?
As I stated, the one thing that will not happen is a rewrite, no matter how
"clean" you could make a new spec, the efforts involved by all APRS users,
and the disruptions that would be caused, do not compensate.
If you disagree with this, then please feel free to argue this point.
Otherwise, please give me something you want done with the APRS spec that
cannot be accomodated in the user defined format.
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The OpenTrac Debate and BS!
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 21:45:18 -0400
X-Message-Number: 130
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 19:42:13 -0400, Christensen, Eric wrote:
>What, exactly, needs to happen to get the APRS-WG back in operation?
I can't answer that question, as I have no idea if they even exist, they
certainly are a stealth group if they do! As far as I know, it has been
years since they meet, and most certainly the bylaws have been breached
multiple times in the intrim.
What I suggested was rejuvenation of the basic ideals of the group, although
personally if it where to happen, I would hope the representation process
would be more similar to the IEEE standards bodies, in which stakeholders get
a say, not a good 'ole boy network of self appointed folks.
Anyways, it was a suggestion for a discussion topic at the Friday session of
the DCC.
73
Jeff wb8wka
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The OpenTrac Debate and BS!
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:08:22 -0400
X-Message-Number: 131
Reality check
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 21:13:58 -0400, Steve Dimse wrote:
>On 6/5/04 at 7:42 PM Christensen, Eric <CHRISTENSENE@MAIL.ECU.EDU>
>sent:
>
>>What, exactly, needs to happen to get the APRS-WG back in
>>operation?
>>
>The function of the APRS WG is to steward the APRS Spec.
Right, we can agree on one thing. The Spec and the WG go hand in hand.
>If someone
>outside the APRS WG has a change they wish to have made, they need
>to get someone within the APRS WG to champion the issue.
That certainly helps, but is not what the APRS-WG charter says:
ftp://ftp.tapr.org/aprssig/aprsspec/announcements/APRSWG_charter.pdf
>A US citizen cannot fly to Washington DC and demand a vote on a law
>he wrote...they must get someone within congress to sponsor the
>bill.
Even if that was the correct analogy (which it is not), I KNOW who my
congressman is. He REPRESENTS my views. I VOTED for him. Ultimately he is
accountable to me. I can call him on the phone (or one of the aides).
Who is even willing to admit they are a member of the APRS-WG? Don't forget,
you resigned in 2000 in a big ball of flames. I'm not pointing fingers, but
as far as I can tell, the APRS-WG is long dead. I even talked to one of the
"current" members of it, and they told me the same thing. Long dead.
>Sure, I think, as I think most of the people in the APRS WG think,
OK, so your back on the APRS-WG?!? They exist? If they exist, is the charter
now considered a work of fiction? They certainly haven't been following it
for some years now.
>Despite the innuendo, no one is telling anyone they cannot
>experiment. All Bob, myself, and others are saying
APRS-WG = Bob, Steve and others? Who??
>And anyone that has a proposal for a change in the spec that cannot
>be accomodated by the user defined protocol needs to get someone on
>the APRS WG to sponsor the proposal...if you cannot get one person
>on your side, how can you expect to win a vote?
OK, then answer this, who sits on the APRS-WG? That would be a start. It is
quite hard to get someone on your side, when they are nameless and faceless.
Show me the money, I'm not saying I won't think it is counterfeit, but I'm
not seeing anything on the table, and I haven't for years. The WG is
bankrupt.
IMHO, we are in the same spot we where in 1999, when Greg Jones had to step
in and bail out APRS. Then it was trademarks that was stopping development.
Now it is the fear of innovation.
That much being said, the documents on:
http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/Faprswg.html
really tell a story and paint what APRS might become, if just given a chance
to grown out of the cement shoes that were set in 2000. THAT was my interest,
not throwing all that work away.... yes, my opinion, I'd make the membership
representative of APRSdom, and not a good 'ole boy network as it was setup,
but other then that, I think it is a sound charter.
But interestingly enough, I'm not sure that is best for new protocols and
even APRSdom. Too much baggage, as we are seeing here. It has been
demonstrated conclusively that protocols OpenTrak can co-exist on 144.39.
Maybe there is no need for it to merge.
Don't know myself... but maybe ithe WG's day has come and gone, and best not
to exhume it from its grave.
Still like to hear some details behind the assertions you made.
Thanks
-Jeff wb8wka
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The OpenTrac Debate and BS!
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:13:27 -0400
X-Message-Number: 132
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 21:21:47 -0400, Danny wrote:
>The APRS-WG was a very closed group. I'd like to see something
>short of 3000 people, but a little more than the closed group of the
>past.
Yeap, no representation from Kenwood, Alinco, any of the tracker guys (Byon,
John, etc), Linux folks or open source guys.
My thought was the rejuvenated WG, could allow anyone that actively marketed
a on air application to partipate. No more good 'ole boy network like the old
WG had. Just step up to the plate, contribute something to APRS, and your
voice can be heard. Not unlink the IEEE standards bodies, where stakeholders
are allowed to partipate
Not perfect, but closer to fair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The OpenTrac Debate and BS!
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:15:47 -0400
X-Message-Number: 133
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 21:41:32 -0400, Steve Dimse wrote:
>If you disagree with this, then please feel free to argue this
>point. Otherwise, please give me something you want done with the
>APRS spec that cannot be accomodated in the user defined format.
How about follow the charter for starts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The OpenTrac Debate and BS!
From: Danny <danny@messano.net>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:40:04 -0400
X-Message-Number: 134
I think we have seen years of ideas coming to the table and constantly
being told what is good for the interests of APRS. This is per the small
"privledged" few that are the supposed knights templar of the APRS Spec.
I would need to search the archives to find how many things even WB4APR has
come up with over the years since 1.0 that he finally had to back down and
find a way to "work around" the spec to make them happen.
There are flaws in the APRS system. Much of it could be improved with an
APRS Spec 2.0. Perhaps it would be incompatible with APRS 1.0. Perhaps
authors would have to do some rewrites for 2.0. If the changes were
profound enough, then the users would follow.
Maybe it is time for an OpenTrac to come along and shake things up. Maybe
me need another APRS variation that lets the users decide what they want,
instead of the few "writers of the code" that would decide things for us.
Look at what happened to WinAPRS after UI-View came along.
Danny Messano
KE4RAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: How about making OpenTrak part of APRS SPEC?
From: Neil Johnson <njohnsn@njohnsn.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 21:53:07 -0500
X-Message-Number: 135
(I know I'm going to regret responding to you Jeff, but here it goes).
Unfortunately APRS straddles both Layer 2 (Data Link) and Layer 3 (Network)
of the standard network model. In a perfect world there would be separation
of two, but that is the legacy of APRS.
In fact, the reason the APRS protocol is the way it is is because Bob was
making it COMPATIBLE with the AX.25 network protocols.
Imagine were APRS would be today if Bob had used a completely different
packet format, and told us all that we would have to "fix" (buy) completely
different hardware in order to run APRS. It would have died on the vine.
By making APRS so it could run on EXISTING packet technology WITHOUT
causing problems is an important reason why APRS is where it is today.
As for the frequency thing. I seem to remember that we grudgingly but
appropriately moved our frequency to 144.39 after complaints from satelite
users about us INTERFERING with their operations.
You don't see Internet users proposing a different Layer 3 protocol (IP) and
demanding that all users replace/fix/upgrade their existing equipment to
accommodate it. No, for the most part they run their protocol INSIDE the
existing IP protocol (i.e. using the user defined APRS packet), OR they set
up separate networks to implement ( IP V6 ) and provide conversions between
the two (separate frequency).
In fact, one of the unwritten rules of Internet Protocols is "be strict in
what you send, but liberal in what you receive". Now one may think that means
that Digi and Igate owners should fix their software, but since APRS is the
existing infrastructure, the pressure is on open track to transmit packets
that conform to that existing infrastructure.
I think it is great that people are looking into ways to improve APRS, but it
shouldn't cause problems for the existing protocol.
What should (and will most likely happen) is that when the "new, improved"
APRS protocol arrives, as people realize that it is significantly better than
the existing one, they will begin to migrate over slowly at first, and then
as the "network effect" kicks in much more quickly.
--
Neil Johnson
http://www.njohnsn.com
PGP key available on request.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [ Danny ] Re: The OpenTrac Debate and BS!
From: "Gregg G. Wonderly" <gregg@skymaster.cytetech.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 22:00:49 -0500
X-Message-Number: 136
>Maybe it is time for an OpenTrac to come along and shake things up. Maybe me
>need another APRS variation that lets the users decide what they want, instead
>of the few "writers of the code" that would decide things for us. Look at
what
>happened to WinAPRS after UI-View came along.
Just like all the other digital modes that have evolved out of
experimentations over the years, I see this as a new experimentation that
will prove itself based on merit and interests. The new features of the
OpenTracker for controlling path content based on certain criteria might
get something into peoples hands that would transmit OpenTrac protocol
packets if they so choose. The support for OpenTrac in various packages,
such as Xastir, will help users of the digipeater infrastructure on 144.390
to see different ways to use digital communications. It will be
interesting to see if a new PACKET-IS system is developed to archive and
make available all the data on packet networks, world wide. It could use a
true encapsulating protocol, instead of text only, and be much more robust.
The enacapsulation could include the PID so it would be clear what parser
to use for decoding it.
In particular, adding the PID of origin for the data into the mix would
make it possible for an arbitrary number of protocols to be created. AX.25
only supports an 8-bit PID, but that doesn't mean that other transports
could not be used. I am still waiting for someone to start sending packet
data via PSK (PSK-31 or a higher bandwidth mode) or otherwise.
There are truely some exciting opportunities to really create some neat
applications that are not burdened by backward compatibility in such a
dramatic way as APRS is. OpenTrac's protocol makes it trivial to upgrade
or phase out a particular element type, in favor of a better
implementation. And, it also makes it possible to add more information such
as resolution improvements in a simple way by adding a new element that
holds the added resolution. It won't be a required field to get to the
next added data as APRS is starting to get to. Optional data is truely
optional.
-----
gregg@cytetech.com (Cyte Technologies Inc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: OPENtrack incompatibilities
From: Neil Johnson <njohnsn@njohnsn.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:03:02 -0500
X-Message-Number: 137
Then what does this buy you ?
If everyone is dropping OpenTrack packets. They won't be Digipeated or picked
up on the APRS-IS.
All you will be doing is tying up local bandwidth with worthless packets.
-Neil
On Friday 04 June 2004 01:16 pm, Scott Miller wrote:
>>OPENtrack is not APRS compatible and so it causes
>>unpredictible results exactly as we have said all along.
>
>Maybe I should clarify. By compatible, I mean non-interfering as defined
>by the spec, not interoperable. You said yourself the spec requires APRS
>packets to be transmitted with PID 0xF0. If clients choose to receive
>non-APRS packets - no one has presented a TNC yet that doesn't have a PID
>filtering option - then they should be prepared to handle those non-APRS
>packets gracefully.
>
>>Thus it is not APRS, BUT it is using characters in the
>>APRS format positions that APRS parsers attempt to
>>parse. They are COMPLIANT.
>
>Did you read my messages about this? It CANNOT generate a valid APRS
>message. If your base91 processor just says 'x - 33' to get the encoded
>value of x, without first checking to see that x is a valid base91
>character, you're asking for trouble. Where in the APRS spec are these
>non-printable characters permitted?
>
>>Minor to you, beause you are the one causing all the
>>problems and insisting that everyone else must change
>>to your new protocol.
>
>I am NOT asking ANYONE to change ANY protocol! I have taken pains to
>follow the AX.25 specification, and to avoid conflicts with the APRS
>specification. I am, however, more than happy to help those with
>incorrectly configured systems rectify the problem. No one has come
>forward with a TNC yet that can't be properly configured.
>
>Scott
>N1VG
--
Neil Johnson
http://www.njohnsn.com
PGP key available on request.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[commercial content deleted]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
