<html><head></head><body><div class="ydp8f7e067ayahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Documented features scattered all around: that's for sure! I tried to implement every APRS 1.2 proposal that applied to a general APRS client, but I sure didn't do all of them.<br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Perhaps we should bring the I-gate interface requirements into the central protocol document as an addendum or appendix. It's been 10 years now, and I'm _still_ not sure whether I have my I-gate interface in my APRS client coded correctly, because the specs on aprs-is.net are not clear, complete, and specific, especially compared with what I actually see on the APRS-IS and what I see from the few transmit I-gates I'm spotted on RF. Not that I want to criticize the authors of APRS-IS; as has been noted earlier on this mailing list, it is HARD to write good documentation, and way too easy to assume that because "I" know it (speaking from the point-of-view of an riginal software author, [which I am, just not of APRS-IS]) that something is intuitively obvious to everyone else (but it isn't).</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">John, as an experienced software engineer (and documentation writer) in my own right, I would be happy to do a document review for you. I've been trained in the brutal school of military documentation review (from the unhappy side as a defense contractor writer), so I'm pretty good at it. Find all those t's that weren't crossed and i's that weren't dotted, etc. :-) Alternatively, if there are sections you'd like me to help with, I'd be happy to contribute chapters.<br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Andrew, KA2DDO</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">author of YAAC (which has routine documentation file updates and reviews)<br></div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="ydp8e35cc2byahoo_quoted_5717497371" class="ydp8e35cc2byahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>
On Sunday, February 13, 2022, 04:00:02 PM EST, John Langner WB2OSZ <wb2osz@comcast.net> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div dir="ltr">Scott Howard wrote:<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">> Hello everyone,<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">> I'd like to take a stab at synthesizing discussions on the multiple<br></div><div dir="ltr">threads<br></div><div dir="ltr">> into actionable items, with the goal of coming up with the 3 month goal<br></div><div dir="ltr">> with > 50% likelihood of success as was suggested. Below is a summary of<br></div><div dir="ltr">> the conversations (IMO), and I think goal #1 below is reasonable to aim<br></div><div dir="ltr">for<br></div><div dir="ltr">> in 3 months.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">> In order of apparent priorities:<br></div><div dir="ltr">> 1) Maintenance of APRS as written.<br></div><div dir="ltr">> 1.1) Take inventory of all the documents (1.0, 1.1, the proposed 1.2, all<br></div><div dir="ltr">> the other notes on aprs.org). ...<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Anyone who has tried to implement the protocol has found it difficult<br></div><div dir="ltr">because two decades of updates are scattered around rather than being<br></div><div dir="ltr">merged into the original protocol specification.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">I'm already pretty far along on updating the protocol specification with <br></div><div dir="ltr">the later notes.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">I took a copy of the original 1.0 specification and have been merging in all<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">of the corrections, clarifications, and new features in the 1.1 addendum.<br></div><div dir="ltr">Most of it is pretty straightforward.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">The 1.2 addendum is a little trickier because it is mostly proposals that<br></div><div dir="ltr">never went anywhere. I think we should just include new features that have <br></div><div dir="ltr">been widely implemented.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">The problem with putting it on github or otherwise making it publicly<br></div><div dir="ltr">available<br></div><div dir="ltr">Is that the original document is copyright 2000 by the APRS Working Group.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">If the original "APRS Working Group" is no longer interested in maintaining<br></div><div dir="ltr">the document, the new maintainers would need to obtain permission to <br></div><div dir="ltr">distribute a modified copy of the copyrighted material.<br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">73,<br></div><div dir="ltr">John WB2OSZ<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">_______________________________________________<br></div><div dir="ltr">aprssig mailing list<br></div><div dir="ltr"><a href="mailto:aprssig@lists.tapr.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">aprssig@lists.tapr.org</a><br></div><div dir="ltr"><a href="http://lists.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig_lists.tapr.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://lists.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig_lists.tapr.org</a><br></div></div>
</div>
</div></body></html>