[aprssig] WIDEn-N question
noskosteve at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 3 20:53:57 CST 2009
Hi Lynn, I hafta' chuckle every time I see that (Mr)
That's ok. I understand 100%. I am also only repeating my recollection/understanding (for validation or correction). Perhaps Bob will read my words and either confirm or suggest that I change my brand of sedative. (:-)
I intentionally left this detail out of my Beginner Guide and just say "for a path, just use bla, bla". I also don't go into that level of detail when doing a talk since it is always beginners and it's better to just say use this path and shut up! - so to speak (:-).
I remember reading the "...fix14439" page and questioning the ...WIDE 2-2 vs. WIDE3-2 and wanted to understand the purpose/intent/desire. I'm pretty sure I kept it off list. I had a desire for it to make sense and WIDE 2-2 seemed to rub me the wrong way when WIDE2-1 was "correct". I've been an Engineer way too long.
Perhaps you can ping him to see if my interpretation was an original intent, or not. It sure seems reasonable to want to know the packet's intent.
73, Steve, K9DCI
--- Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) wrote:
> I'm really not being contentious, but I've never seen a
> recommendation of the N-1 described below. You caught
> me at a good/bad time as I'm actually preparing an APRS
> presentation for our local ham club and had just re-read the
> following New-N Paradigm pages....
> As it says there, I've only seen WIDE1-1,WIDE2-2 suggested
> and never WIDE1-1,WIDE3-2 although I completely understand
> the logic behind the latter.
> Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ
> Steve Noskowicz wrote:
> > In other words, For strict adhereance to the New
> Paradigm (and ignoring which digi uses which part of the
> path), the above "should" be:
> > WIDE1-1,WIDE2-1
> > vs.
> > WIDE1-1,WIDE3-2
> > vs.
> > WIDE1-1,WIDE4-3
> > to be completely correct (again, ignoring
> if it is wise to do).
> > On this one WIDE1-1,WIDE3-2 you
> will sometines see that WIDE1-1,WIDE2-2 is sometimes
> recommended instead. That is the one that Bob said
> would be expected by come operators (who look at such
> things) and that is was "ok" for that reason even though it
> is not per the paradigm.
> > Hope that is clear ...um... and that I "get" the
> > 73, Steve, K9DCI
> > --- On Tue, 11/3/09, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) <ldeffenb at homeside.to>
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
More information about the aprssig