Hi Trevor,
Op 29-08-10 11:08, Trevor . schreef: >> I do not understand why -say- the IARU does not does this. I'm not >> say they should endorce any "standard" of any technology. >> > Unfortunately it would require a volunteer willing to put in a lot of hard > work to do. Volunteers are always in short supply. > Well, I don't know. In the internet-world, RFCs are usually written by the people who design the protocol or the technology explained in the RFC. The IETF doesn't do that neither. All the IARU should do is: - encourage people who create new protocols and technologies to document it in a written document. - Do "quality control" (e.g. concerning the exact wording of the RFCs) - Publish them. (which just means "put them on their website"). Now I must say. Thinking about it. Perhaps one of the differences in (say) an internet-protocol and ham digital modes is that the first group is usually created by teams of people, while I have the impression that a lot of the digital modes are created by just one or a very limited number of people. In a team, there usually already is written documentation anyway (as part of the process of coming up with the specification and the discussions inside the team), it's probably much easier to "translate the final version into a RFC-document" and there usually already is somebody of the team assigned to documentation anyway. If you do create something by yourself, most people have "something on paper, but most of it in my head". The task of asking "now write this all into a nice technical spec" is then much more work. Perhaps what Dave (Rowe, creator of codec2) should do is to make a technical presentation on some ham conference (preferable filmed and available on youtube afterwards) so that somebody else can start write a technical specs based on that. And, to be honest. Having to give a technical presentation is not necessairy a bad thing. I noticed myself that, having to make some slides and having to think on how to explain something, quite often leads to some insides into problems you are having. :-) > One existing source of info is > > http://www.arrl.org/technical-characteristics > > But this doesn't provide always provide detailed description of a mode, for > instance you couldn't recreate Pactor-III from the information supplied > there. Also I suspect it's not kept up to date with mode enhancements. Thanks for the link. Very interesting. IIRC, pactor 2 and pactor 3 use patented technology so I doubt it will be freely documented somewhere. :-( > 73 Trevor M5AKA > Cheerio! Kristoff ON5ARF (ex ON1ARF)
