On 26/09/2019 20:21, John Zantek wrote:
Am I standing out on a dangerous limb (NPI), if each QP sponsor decides, then
compiles a branch that supports their QP, and distributes it on their QP web
site? As a Salmon Run sponsor, I know the desire is significant here (from
inquiries tosalmon...@wwdxc.org), even if some other states may have said NTY.
John,
changing the interpretation of FT4/FT8/MSK144 payload bits is changing
the protocol, that special program can no longer use the names
FT4/FT8/MSK144 for the mode since users of the official programs will
not be able to interoperate with this special version. It is effectively
equivalent to not passing all information on air as you need to know
that a special version of the software is needed before you can
communicate with it. Not only is the above a problem with
interoperability but also the signals will sound identical to official
FT4/FT8/MSK144 signals and will be decoded, incorrectly, unless some
scrambling is also included, like changing the synchronization symbols,
so that users of the official modes will not be mislead. JS8CALL is
similar in these respects, we insisted that the team that created
JS8CALL from WSJT-X both used a different name for the mode and scramble
the messages such that the official programs do not decode their message
that had non-standard interpretations of the payload bits. Note that
JS8CALL does have a reasonably distinctive characteristic that allows it
to be distinguished from standard FT8 since T/R periods are not
alternated, your proposal would not have any such distinctive
characteristics.
73
Bill
G4WJS.
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
