That is not what I read in previous discussions by folks who were
actually doing protocol-level work, but if you insist that the
headers are encapsulated inside the portion of the stream that's
covered by FEC, I can't really refute it technically.
What I can be sure of, is that the statement makes
At 07:20 AM 10/17/2009, you wrote:
>That is not what I read in previous discussions by folks who were
>actually doing protocol-level work, but if you insist that the
>headers are encapsulated inside the portion of the stream that's
>covered by FEC, I can't really refute it technically.
My und
My reading of the protocol specification is that the header has a
checksum (2.1.1 (11) page 4 - http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/D-STAR.pdf)
for error detection, but forward error correction (FEC) only
applies to the "audio" portion of the AMBE payload (and performed by
lf Of Tony Langdon
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 5:09 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Beeps
At 07:20 AM 10/17/2009, you wrote:
>That is not what I read in previous discussions by folks who were
>actually doing protocol-level work, but if you insist t
in the Last Heard list.
Ed WA4YIH
From: dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.
com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony
Langdon
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 5:09 PM
To: dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.comsubject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re:
Beeps
At 07:20 AM 10/17/2009, you wrote:
>That is
Okay, interesting. Please review and note that I never said a
receiving station gets a CORRUPTED callsign. The result is
actually that the receiving station gets *no callsign* at all.
Then the firmware in the controller or the software in the GW was
programmed in such a way as to treat that missin
gital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Nate Duehr
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 7:49 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Beeps
Okay, interesting. Please review and note that I never said a receiving station
gets a CORRUPTED ca
On Oct 16, 2009, at 9:22 PM, Woodrick, Ed wrote:
> The “ignoring the call if it can’t be decoded” IS the attempt to
> assure that the protocol works. That allows subsequent transmissions
> to follow the initial transmission. If this didn’t occur, then there
> would be a lot more “dropped tr
