Bill, I'm sure I'm not alone, but I require some acknowledgement of receipt of signal report. I'm not hard over about what that is, be it 73 or RR73. Personally I like a 73 term from both stations but I think it's logical for the original CQ station to terminate the QSO with RR73. At that point call signs, grids, and RST's have been exchanged and acknowledged. Therefore sending RR73 should be treated the same as sending 73. That's fine for the original CQ station, and his QSO partner who receives the RR73/73. However, the QSO partner who doesn't decode a RR73/73 is left hanging. In my case, I resend R+dB, and so should the software. Waiting a decode cycle after sending RR73/73 to ensure QSO completion seems like a good scenario. If either nothing or 73 is received from the answering CQ partner, the original CQ station can assume the RR73/73 was received. The same would be true if the answering CQ stations call sign is spotted in another QSO or calling CQ.
That's my logic. I hope it's clear. In the end, the individual op is going to have to pay attention and perhaps apply their own logic in any given situation. -----Original Message----- From: Bill Somerville [mailto:g4...@classdesign.com] Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 7:18 AM To: WSJT software development <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X: How to handle using RR73 as a final message Hi All, we are looking at changing the WSJT-X logic such that a grid message of the form: "<dx-call> <de-call> RR73" is treated as a sign off message. This has several implications and I need some clarification so that I can adjust the code. For now I will put aside any potential issues for holders of compound callsigns as I have not analysed the impact for them yet. The first change is already in place, sending such an RR73 message is treated the same as sending a standard 73 message or any free text message containing the word "73". This means that, if prompt to log after 73 is set the log QSO window will be popped up, and if "Settings->General->Behavior->Disable Tx after 73" is checked, auto transmit will be disabled and the next message to be sent will be moved on to Tx6 (CQ message). This part is straightforward. I propose to add a check box option to "Settings->General->Behavior" along the lines of "Use RR73 in place of RRR", when checked this would generate the above RR73 message for the Tx4 (RRR) message, thus formalizing the usage of RR73 as a final QSO message. So now the questions. If we have disabled auto Tx and switched the next message to Tx6/CQ, how do we proceed if no "73" message is received from ones QSO partner. Listening on the bands it seems that sending an RR73 message has some special significance in that it is always assumed to be received by ones QSO partner. This may be reasonable in propagation such that any subsequent messages can be taken by ones QSO partner to mean that the QSO is indeed complete even if the RR73 message was never decoded. For example if you have called a station calling CQ, received a report, sent a R+report and then get no decode from them in the next period; then the next decode from the other station is a CQ call or them giving a report to a different station or even calling another station on a different frequency, then are we safe to assume that our QSO was complete and there is no requirement to repeat the R+report message (the normal action if an RRR message is not decoded) or even send a 73 message ourselves? BTW this does beg the question of how a station running a frequency completes their last QSO on a band, do we take silence to be an indication that a missed RR73 decode was in fact sent. The above is fairly easy to implement in that, if an RR73 message is received from ones QSO partner ones next message will be set to Tx5/73 (note not RR73) and if prompt to log is checked the log QSO window will pop up. Also if "Settings->General->Behavior->Disable Tx after 73" is checked, auto transmit will be disabled. In other words, receiving an RR73 message will be treated exactly the same as receiving a 73 message (note this would not be optional). Note the implication of the above is that no reply would be sent to an RR73 message if one is received. I suppose this is the intent of the original calling station and they might expect a tail-end caller to utilize the period after they send RR73 without you QRMing such a caller by sending a 73 message. This raises an issue of what to do when an expected RRR or RR73 message is not received or decoded since it is impossible to know if the original caller received ones R+report message, or whether they sent RRR and are expecting a 73 message, or whether they repeated their report and are expecting an R+report message, or they actually sent RR73 and expect that the QSO is over. How can the software and indeed the operator deal with this scenario? It would seem that resending the R+report message is the only deterministic option which makes a mockery of any assumption that RR73 messages are always decoded. More questions to follow once I have a feel for how this is expected to work. I do not really want a debate on the merits of this common tactic to speed up QSOs, just the mechanics of how it should work. 73 Bill G4WJS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
