Pop up a level, Walt. Forgetting about how it might be implemented,
what functionality do you seek?
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Walt DuBose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I believe that this was my comment...just for what I need to
accomplish on
> HF...I need the below capability. Which is not to assume that
anyone else in
> amateur radio or a customer of amateur radio services, other than
me and the
> folks I work with/support, would need such. Now you would get from
here to
> there is certainly another problem and as you point out does not
meet the ARRL's
> request. My desire was just what I would like to see and "end
product" be
> capable of.
>
> Walt/K5YFW
>
>
>
> Dave Bernstein wrote:
> >
> >
> > Before leaping to conclusions like "a data transfer mode that
would
> > be able to provide at a minimum between 4000 and 5000 characters
per
> > minute throughput at SNRs or less than -5 dB", I strongly suggest
> > first reaching agreement on the use cases that such a protocol
would
> > support.
> >
> > The ARRL's "Request for comments" (see
> > http://www.arrl. org/news/ stories/2007/ 02/22/102/ ?nc=1
> > <http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/02/22/102/?nc=1> ) is
entirely
> > focused on low-level details: access method, data rate, bandwidth
> > error control, activity detection, etc. There is no mention as to
> > the kinds of usage that such a protocol would support: Keyboard-
to-
> > keyboard or message delivery? Time critical? Safety critical?
Small
> > messages or big files? One-to-one or party line? etc.
> >
> > If the answer is "all of them", then we can stop now and save a
lot
> > of stomach lining. You can build a space shuttle or a helicopter,
but
> > you can't have one device for both commuting daily from your back
> > yard and escaping the planet's gravity well; debating what sort of
> > fuel injection to use is not the place to start.
> >
> > Similarly, there won't be one protocol that can support every
> > possible application for moving bits over RF.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Dave, AA6YQ
> >
> > --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
> > <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, Walt DuBose <dubose@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > You are 100% correct Rick. There have been many, including
myself
> > who have
> > > encouraged the League to seek input from its members.
> > >
> > > Some was started when the League started its little surveys on
the
> > web and now
> > > expanding by asking for technical input.
> > >
> > > So let's put on our "thinking caps" and tell the ARRL what we
would
> > like to see.
> > >
> > > Personally I would like to see a data transfer mode that would
be
> > able to
> > > provide at a minimum between 4000 and 5000 characters per
minute
> > throughput at
> > > SNRs or less than -5 dB. This and modifications could be used
for
> > messaging as
> > > well as file transfers and even digital voice. of perhaps there
> > might be three
> > > modes for each of these needs.
> > >
> > > 73,
> > >
> > > Walt/K5YFW
> > >
> > >
> > > Rick wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The ARRL has come under criticism in the past because it did
not
> > provide
> > > > enough input from the membership and I suspect that they are
> > opening up
> > > > this line of communication from the members to even ask the
> > questions to
> > > > determine what it is that we want (or not want), before they
start
> > > > making moving in an RFP like direction.
> > > >
> > > > Initially, it is a determination of whether we want some
kind of
> > open
> > > > source protocol and, if so, what we think might be some of
the
> > > > characteristics of that protocol.
> > > >
> > > > Based on comments to this group, there are different views on
> > what that
> > > > should be. I am expecting that they will eventually publish
some
> > kind of
> > > > collation of the input and perhaps we may find some areas of
> > consensus.
> > > >
> > > > 73,
> > > >
> > > > Rick, KV9U
> > > >
> > > > Art Botterell wrote:
> > > > > They say it's not an RFP, and I have no reason to doubt
that,
> > but
> > > > > that still leaves me wondering what the League's query
> > actually IS.
> > > > > Has there been any articulation of what the League's
purpose
> > might be
> > > > > in soliciting these comments? Is this a foray into
standards-
> > > > > setting? Product development? Or what?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
