Mike Bilow wrote:
>
> I'll probably have my head handed to me for this, but at least accept that
> these comments are based on over 15 years of experience with packet.
Not by me!
I agree with all five points 100%. You said what I've been mulling over
what to say for a week.
> I think we know that by now.
Well, obviously most on this list do. Alas, Karl had to be reminded.
> I suggested this years ago. I even offerred to serve as de facto secretary,
> and asked that anyone interested contact me via e-mail. I received three
> responses and scrapped the idea. If people are willing to try it again, I
> think it would be a good project. There was some talk of TAPR facilitating
> something similar, but I think that discussion may have died out, too.
It takes someone with more engineering background than I to be able to
manage such a project. I would try to help in other ways such as beta
testing or writing documentation if needed. Perhaps now is a better
time to move this direction as I think we can implement new ideas
without concern of its impact on commercial interests selling ancient
TNC technology.
> However, I also have no sympathy for writing lots of nice papers about
> protocols without actually trying to implement them. An unimplemented protocol
> is obviously of no use to anyone, and it is impossible to know if it would even
> work until someone at least attempts to implement it. Perhaps Linux is the key
> to making this happen, since it provides a convenient and accessible platform
> for developing new hardware and software in the open.
Excellent point. I think it was this talk of AX.25 Version 2.2 support
in another thread that got me to thinking about this very problem.
Given the mistakes and reasons for all prior protocols, a new
implemention on Linux gives us advantages today only dreamed of when
packet was in its infancy. I think the protocol(s) should be designed
and implemented by those people on this list and perhaps adding in those
others who have worked with implementing AX.25 or other protocols in
other PC programs.
To me it seems that a new protocol implemented on Linux would be the
reference implementation for ham radio anyone else would need to follow
when implementing it on another platform.
I think the model presented by Linux development is an excellent one to
follow for designing a next generation radio-based protocol. I'm
willing to help.
73, de Nate >>
P.S. I've been playing with packet for 11 years, so you have a couple on
me!
--
Packet | N0NB @ WF0A.#SCKS.KS.USA.NOAM | "The more you
Internet | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | complain, the
Location | Valley Center, Kansas USA EM17hs | longer God lets
Visit my Linux + Ham Radio pages | you live."
http://homepage.netspaceonline.com/~ka0rny/ |
