[aprssig] Draft Copy of Thesis on APRS

Curt Mills curt.we7u at gmail.com
Wed Dec 10 12:14:24 EST 2014

Morse code ID:  I mentioned that because it is legal to do so, not
because it would be recommended.  You could also do an ID to no path,
which would also be legal.

!DAO! extension:  It isn't implemented by a lot of packages.  We
haven't implemented it in Xastir yet.

The nice thing about the SS aliases is that you can flood a state with
alerts intended just for that state.  Weather and Amber Alerts would
be two good instances.

As far as Version 2.0 versus 2.2 of the spec:  Most of the TNC
implementations (not talking about APRS trackers) were done prior to
that, so only support 2.0.  I seem to remember that there were both
digipeater limits and changes to the flags in the new spec, which were
hotly debated after it came out (on the lists), and most chose to not
support 2.2 at the time.  So then most of the new tracker
implementations only supported 2.0 after that as well.

Regarding the APRS spec again:  Version 1.0 was ratified.  Addendum
1.1 was ratified (which consists of a bunch of web pages, a difficult
thing to get my head around WRT a spec).  Addendum 1.2 was not
ratified as far as I know, but there are several things in there that
have been implemented by later versions of APRS software.  So...  To
get your head around the entire spec, you need 1.0, 1.1, and maybe at
least parts of 1.2.  I think the addendums address a few of the
concerns in your paper.  !DAO! was in the addendums I think, so I'm
sure you've considered them.

Good luck Friday!  Excellent paper by the way!

Curt, WE7U

More information about the aprssig mailing list