[ax25-layer2] ax25 backward compatibility

[Pete Loveall AE5PL]

This list was created to focus on using AX.25 as the layer 2 protocol
for which it was designed, not to create a new protocol.  Whether you
have personally invested any money in AX.25 equipment (which you
apparently have with your D700) or not is immaterial to consideration of
maintaining certain levels of compatibility with prior versions of the
protocol.

AX.25 is a standard established over 25 years ago.  A significant amount
of development has occurred since that time making use of the protocol
and should not be ignored.  What has been discussed to this point and
what will need to be determined is how much the current specification
needs to change to fully support layer 3 and above protocols.

Let's keep the focus on what we have today, what we need to _modify_ in
the specification to better perform _layer 2_ functions, and how do we
accommodate extensions necessary to support things like 7 character
callsigns.  A fact of life is our frequencies are shared and everybody
doesn't upgrade (or throw away) out-dated equipment.  With that in mind
and with the knowledge that standards committees over the years
understand that a new version of a specification is built upon previous
versions, let's move forward keeping the focus on the current AX.25 2.2
specification and how it needs to be revised to support the other issues
brought up to be a more effective layer 2 protocol.  As a reminder,
applications such as OpenTRAC and APRS are not using AX.25 as a layer 2
protocol but rather are written to the protocol (tightly coupled).  This
list's intent is to _not_ add any special support for those or any other
applications written specifically for AX.25 but to concentrate on
returning AX.25 to its original intent as a layer 2 protocol.

73,

Pete Loveall AE5PL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w0ep
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 11:43 AM
> To: Discussion of Link Layer use of AX.25
> Subject: [ax25-layer2] ax25 backward compatibility
> 
> 
> For me, not having a large investment in TNC's D700's etc. 
> etc, backward compatibility isn't really a very persuasive feature.
> (What ax25 I do use is for APRS, and there the backward 
> compatibility thing is pretty poor
> anyway.)
> 
> In my experience the thing that finally shakes loose from 
> backward compatibility is if there is a new application or new system.
> 
> So, maybe someone can work on ax25 3.0  for a backbone or 
> something?  (And in the great ham tradition, the proper way 
> to do it is to build the thing then worry later about documentation!)