[aprssig] Maximum APRS Packet Lengths
kb3tbx at gmail.com
Tue Nov 29 06:03:36 CST 2016
#3, and 5: see
7. Where did this 67 character limit on messages come from?
This is a question for Bob.
He was counting, like this:
BText (B): >ANDE alt._channel.__US_Naval_Academy <== REV-2
> Note, Underscores are used for BLANK characetrs here in
> this spec to clearly indicate the exact number of spaces
> The spacing is such to fit well on the Kenwood D7 display
Says Max. 45 Characters - that is old, but that's not it.
Has: Messaging • Messages: up to 100 (max. 67 characters each)
maybe, but I like this purpose-built device:
4x20, but it does 20 characters, then scrolls.
I didn't get licensed til 10 years later...
I should be at work already.
> So my questions:
> 1. Do we still want RF-gates including consumed hops in third-party
> packets, or is that deprecated in favor of the "}[SRCCALL]>[TNCID],[NETWORKID],[IGATECALL]*:"
> 42 byte format? (If we're going to clarify that as being deprecated, we
> should probably include AEA format while we're at it)
> 2. Are there any other Network IDs in actual use except for TCPIP for
> APRS-IS? (Remember that TCPXX is already deprecated)
> 3. Where did all of these different lengths for comment fields come from?!
> 4. Do we want to consider loosening up the maximum packet length for some
> of these data types?
> The way I figure, we could support 197 byte messages for APRS Messages.
> This is going to break sending long-winded messages to many devices, but 67
> is awfully restrictive compared to modern features like SMS... Clearly new
> software is deliberately constraining fields based on the spec. I'll need
> to test length limits on the D700 I've got sitting on my bench.
> 5. Does anyone happen to know the actual length limits on messaging for
> various devices out in the wild already?
> 6. If not messaging, do we want to loosen some of the comment fields? 23
> bytes for the BITS. Project Title seems like a strong contender for first
> to consider. Remember that we're talking about bytes here, not characters;
> many non-English languages using UTF-8 can burn through 23 bytes very
> quickly, so I'm talking about making Project Titles allowed up to something
> CRAZY like 190 so length just isn't an issue anymore.
> 7. Where did this 67 character limit on messages come from?! This really
> bothers me now.
> Kenneth Finnegan, W6KWF
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the aprssig