[aprssig] aprssig Digest, Vol 89, Issue 5

[Bob Bruninga]

I think we agree.  Lets see if I got it..

We normally expect to see {nn}rr line numbers (with reply acks).

When }06 stands alone at the end of any message (without {nn in front of it), it is not a line number and does not break anything.  Yet, any code MAY accept it as a reply ack.  (good idea of yours).  So therefore, adding these to Bulletins, Announcemnts and AA: messages is a good idea.

My only point was that existing code (at least mine) will not see the reply ack unless it is inside a line number.  Because I only look for the }06 inside of a line number.

I will add this idea of yours to the APRS11 spec part about the AA: messages.  No reason why they cannot include the REPLY-ACK.

thanks for keeping an eye on things!

Bob, Wb4APR


Bob, WB4APR


---- Original message ----
>Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 06:49:02 -0700
>From: aprssig-bounces at tapr.org (on behalf of Brent Hildebrand <brent.hildebrand at gmail.com>)
>Subject: Re: [aprssig] aprssig Digest, Vol 89, Issue 5  
>To: aprssig at tapr.org
>
>   Line numbers are of the form {xx.  Reply/Acks
>   }yy.  A Reply/Ack is not a linenumber and should
>   not be interpreted as such.  Thus, an exchange with
>   one user having AA turned on might look like this:
>
>   WB1XYZ>APRS::KK2ABC   :Hello there! {06
>   KK2ABC>APRS::WB1XYZ   :ack06
>   KK2ABC>APRS::WB1XYZ   :AA:I'm not here }06
>
>   There is no line number in the AA message, only a
>   Reply/Ack. If KK2ABC returns to their keyboard and
>   send a reply, the exchange might like like this:
>
>   KK2ABC>APRS::WB1XYZ   :I'm back! {02}06
>   WB1XYZ>APRS::KK2ABC   :ack02}06
>   WB1XYZ>APRS::KK2ABC   :Good to hear from you
>   {07}02
>   KK2ABC>APRS::WB1XYZ   :ack07}02
>   WB1XYZ>APRS::KK2ABC   :Where have you been? {08}02
>   //  KK2ABC leaves again and turns on the AA
>   message...
>   KK2ABC>APRS::WB1XYZ   :AA:I'm not here }08
>
>   The point is, that a reply/ack can be added to a AA
>   message and it should not be interpreted as a
>   message number because it is not of the form of a
>   message number.
>
>   Old client programs, the message number was of the
>   form {xxxxx.  When reply/acks were added to newer
>   programs, they did not break anything.  Generating
>   the real "ack" as :ack02}06 is only ack'ing message
>   number 2.  On programs that understand reply/acks,
>   ;ack02 would have been sufficient.  For backward
>   compatibility, the ack included the reply/ack.
>   Putting the reply/ack in the AA does not cause
>   backward compatibility issues because the reply/ack
>   is not in message number format and should not
>   generate a return ack. 
>
>   OK - I'll disappear again.  This is probably not
>   that important.  BH KH2Z
>
>   On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 5:00 AM,
>   <aprssig-request at tapr.org> wrote:
>
>     Bob's 2) precludes that.  The "ack" request }nn
>     is the same thing as a "Line number" which Bob
>     says that AA's should NOT have.
>
>     Unless you're referring to an APRS client
>     implementation that actually issues such ack
>     requests on it's AA (without the colon) packets? 
>     You didn't give us much context here. 
>________________
>_______________________________________________
>aprssig mailing list
>aprssig at tapr.org
>https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig