Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[aprssig] Fwd: RE: WinLink and the APRS-IS

AE5PL Lists HamLists at ametx.com
Tue Feb 15 18:55:37 UTC 2005


Good points.  I am aware of some software that may have (I haven't
personally test it) trouble with mixed-case names though, as you have
pointed out Bob, this shouldn't be the case.

This is where a few more issues present themselves which further
complicate the question "How should I name an object and what should I
include in the text?"  Let's do a quick review of what we are trying to
accomplish with these objects (and, for that matter EchoLink and IRLP
objects).

1) Allow a WinLink TelPac node operator to "announce" the availability
of the resource.
2) Allow a WinLink TelPac node operator to "announce" how to use the
resource (callsign-SSID, frequency, speed).
3) Allow this information to be gated to RF for local non-Internet
connected users.
4) Make the information easily usable by the most users.

("EchoLink link/repeater" or "IRLP node" could be easily substituted for
"WinLink TelPac" in 1 & 2 above.  Different specific information may
apply for #2 in those instances.)

1&2 are really of no value without 3&4.

In the WinLink case, there is nothing that precludes an operator from
using the same SSID on the TelPac node and on an APRS station (different
frequencies, different protocols, their packets will never cross ;-).
As Bill pointed out, an operator can also be running multiple TelPac and
APRS stations with the same callsign (different SSID's in most cases,
but not necessarily all).  APRS limits the object name to 9 characters
making unique node identification difficult, at best.  We have used
grid-squares as names, but there was some duplication that occurred and
would definitely occur in Bill's example.  We can use lower case
callsigns in the name but that could be problematic with some software
(though this should be looked at as a bug to be fixed).  I am just
putting thoughts together here, not promoting one method over another.

If a format is determined that is relatively easy for the non-Internet
user to identify a resource, then there is the matter of gating it to
RF.  The local IGate operator may not care enough to track individual
resources in the area and update the gate parameters on a continual
basis, yet others non-IGate operators would certainly like to see the
information.  A TelPac node operator might not know who to contact to
get their packets gated to RF either.  We don't want an RF network
flooded with nodes from outside the area, but the most used IGate
software already allows us to do this regardless of the techniques
proposed by others on this list.

Hmm.  Can it be done to satisfy everyone?  I would venture to say no.
Can it be done to provide benefit to most while minimizing impact on the
RF world?  I would venture to say yes since the ability to "screw up" as
was so eloquently stated elsewhere is already in place in most IGates
and it has not been severely problematic.  If people look at the end
goal and not focus on petty beliefs of what might or might not happen, I
believe a good, usable format can be obtained which will benefit a
majority of RF users.  And that is what the primary purpose is, right?

73,

Pete Loveall AE5PL
mailto:pete at ae5pl.net 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Bruninga
> Posted At: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 11:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [aprssig] Fwd: RE: WinLink and the APRS-IS
> 
> They would be indistinguishable  on APRS and would ping-pong. 
>  Only way to fix that is to go back to the original call 
> CCCCCC-SS as the object name.
> 
> and the only problem with that was that it was not obviously 
> a TelPac node on the "station list".
> Well, we could do that with making it lower case.
> Since it is an object, case is preserved and this would make 
> it stand out on the users display...




More information about the aprssig mailing list