[aprssig] RFC New Data Type Identifier?

Bryan Hoyer bhhoyer at gmail.com
Sat Jan 26 10:17:26 CST 2013


That's what we're currently testing with.

The downside is that parsing systems will group commands with messages.

Bryan

On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:56 AM, PE1RDW <aprs at pe1rdw.demon.nl> wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 16:41:54 +0100, Bryan Hoyer <bhhoyer at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> As many of you know we are building a new digital radio that can be controlled OTA.
>> 
>> If I define a command as anything that causes an action on the receiver's part. I do not see a DTI for commands, except for the following:
>> 
>> ? Query
>> 
>> < Station Capabilities
>> 
>> Both of these elicit a response but are not generic command types.
>> 
>> We need a single generic DTI for control of the radio, that flows harmlessly thru the system and yet is understandable by a passive observer.
>> 
>> Should we use an existing type like:
>> 
>> { User-Defined APRS packet format
>> 
>> or is some other solution more appropriate?
>> 
>> Inquiring minds want to know...
>> Bryan K7UDR
>> 
>> 
> digined does it by embedding the commands in a message, messages will always go trough the system including from IS to RF, a lot of other aprs commandable systems use messages as wel so I see no reason what it would nto work for your project as wel.
> 
> -- 
> 73 Andre PE1RDW
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
> http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig



More information about the aprssig mailing list