Steve Dimse K4HG wrote:
> On 4/3/99 1:33 PM Mike Bilow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> >The first thing you do when designing any protocol is provide for a protocol
> >version number, a frame length specifier, and finally an extension
> >mechanism.
>
> sucks, just not for these reasons. The APRS protocol runs fine on any
> transport mechanism that is capable of handling ASCII.
Yes.
>
> problem is only because I was responding to a proposal to completely
> scrap the current APRS protocol and come up with something new.
Your talking about my thoughts? How many times do I need to say this,
APRS is a APPLICATION. I was just saying it was ill suited to the transport
mechanism it was married to. None of you guys (APRS authors) has really
written a low level transport layer for APRS.... you just using the upper layers
to fix the lower layers.
I'm not talking about APRS on the internet. I'm talking about APRS at the
lower layers as over a hidden terminal plagued RF channel.
You might want to re-read the last message I sent you, I went into some
detail as to some easy things to improve APRS without any need to
"scrap" the protocol.
> > SD> One of the things you have to promise to become an "official
> > SD> APRS software author" is never to release your source code.
> >
> >Really? That's insidious. What could be the point of that?
> >
> Per Bob, the primary reason is that if people could modify the code and
> get on the air, the protocol would break down. And he does have a point.
Yes, if you think everyone is an idiot, he does have a point. The success
of the various flavors of KA9Q NOS, and its open source, is a testimate
that Bob's thinking should be questioned.
>
> Given the present state of the documentation on the protocol,
I used to bitch at some of the NOS authors that some things were not documented.
They said read the source. I said, ahhhh..... I see now. Yes, I agree,
documentation
is good, but one can always read the source....
> and the way
> he changes it when he feels the urge, it is hard enough for the four
> major versions (Mac/WinAPRS [common codebase], APRSdos, APRS+SA, and
> javAPRS) to keep in sync. The more authors in a situation like that, the
> more chances for confusion. My argument that the answer is not to lock up
> the source code, but rather to formalize the protocol, has fallen on deaf
> ears.
Then clearly something is wrong. Even a commercial interest (that would lock
up the source) would document the protocol. Also, if I am not mistaken,
the protocol MUST be clearly documented to comply with FCC regulations.
> Money is the other less often admitted reason he opposes source code
> release.
Right, he has the authors eating out of his hand. He has no reason to change.
There is no competition. If source were released, he could loss control as
he has no legal claim to the protocol (just the trademark).
Oh, you never answered my question in my last e-mail. If someone were to
come up with an alternate lower layer transport mechanism, would you
support this in your APRSserver application? As I said, this would require
little or no work on your part..... the radio<>internet gateway software could
put it in the format you expect.
-Jeff wb8wka
