Hi Bill,
I am always like to see your comments which inspire deep consideration for the readers. Attached reference indeed requires the confirmation of QSO but it does not say express consensus method such as “73-RRR-RR73”. Then, I understand it allows to use “implied” method without sending any message at the next wsjt-x timeframe. This method is said as “agreement of silence” in the normal conversation and “time out” in telecommunication protocol used when the call is established. Regards, take de JA5AEA Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 ________________________________ From: Bill Somerville <g4...@classdesign.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 5:08:10 PM To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Why73 - RRR or RR73 ---isn't it a waste of time ? On 16/10/2018 00:37, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote: > That is your opinion. All that needs to happen is both sides receive > some data. A confirmation is never required. I never get that when > working DXpeditions so why would I expect it on FT8. I never get > confirmations on my 60k contest contacts either. Not sure what > contests you have been in. CQ WW 599 04. Done and gone, the DX does > not and does not have to send back anything. Stop trying to force your > way on others. Thanks. Hi Mike, no it is not just my opinion, for example this document is a good review of the various opinions of the recognized bodies that might be involved in the validity of QSOs: http://hf.r-e-f.org/c4_iaru_r1/10vienne/VIE10_C4_11%20QSO%20definition.pdf That is important because many of your QSO partners may be expecting to use confirmed QSOs with you as entries for many of the awards and contests managed by those bodies, if your unilateral definition of a minimal QSO falls short of those requirements then you are doing your QSO partners a disservice. I also pointed out above that the view of a minimum QSO definition I stated is consistent with that of the authors of the WSJT applications, not just my opinion, and that the applications are written to conform to that definition of a QSO. This thread is a request for dropping some of the message exchange requirements expected by WSJT-X, not about opinions. I was trying to explain why the minimum QSO exchange including confirmations of receipt of information is non-negotiable as far as the developers are concerned. 73 Bill G4WJS. _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
_______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
