Re: [digitalradio] Re: HFLINK Comments to ARRL on Development of New HF Digital Comm Protocols]
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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?
[digitalradio] Re: HFLINK Comments to ARRL on Development of New HF Digital Comm Protocols]
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?
[digitalradio] Re: HFLINK Comments to ARRL on Development of New HF Digital Comm Protocols]
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 ) 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, Walt DuBose [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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?
[digitalradio] Re: HFLINK Comments to ARRL on Development of New HF Digital Comm Protocols]
I'm still a bit confused by this whole process. Accepting that the League's query wasn't an RFP, does anyone know with any certainty what it IS? Is some sort of standard-setting envisioned here? Or something else? - Art KD6O
