So many pages that describes digital modes on HF at a high level, and maybe sometimes giving audio file samples, but *not* *one* document anywhere which details how the modulation actually works.

Not. One.

I've frequently thought about starting a website just for ham radio standards of various kinds (hardware, modulation, etc.). Never executed on that vision though, as so few (literally, 0) responded to the idea back when I proposed such an organization in 2007. Heh.

@vertigo Yes, the ham community is so fractured. I have often thought an "IETF" organization for amateur radio would ideal. When I looked around somebody had founded an ARETF:

* (security warning)
* (not been updated in 4 years)
* (can't tell what year the last post was made)

But it looks defunct.

A clearing house for amateur radio specs and documents would be so nice.

Forget buy-in from some group. So many orgs just do what they want. Perhaps we should setup a git repo on some aretf (or similar) domain and setup and RFC system where anyone can submit RFCs via PR with a draft, review, and voting. I would be interested in documenting older protocols in such a system where there is little to no available reference material. Its good learning and becomes an invaluable resoure to the larger community. Might even foster some openness as well.

I would be glad to host something on my tilde.

I'd be interested in helping as well. I'd have to re-immerse myself in the community again, though. :)

@vertigo Ok!

I am somewhat more interested in making a new community, hence

I haven't had the (dis)pleasure of attending an amateur radio technical conference, although I have been wanting to go. But, your experience confirms my suspicion and general observation that many folks in amateur radio are not collaborative, but insecure, defensive, and arrogant. And certain personalities are more interested in obtaining power and carving out fiefdoms rather than "advancing the state of the art."

But the sponsoring groups of such technical conferences are just organizations like any other. It seems like so much can be done outside of those groups. freakazoid (I think, or perhaps it was you) was noting how much more advanced European packet radio is. We just need a group of like minded folks here to accomplish similar things.

The SATNOGS folks (based in Europe) are doing some amazing stuff with satellite ops.

And the AMSAT elections appear to be opening up and shining some light on what appears to be an incredibly poorly run organization.

I would say the current amateur radio technical organization have such "power" because they provided good leadership at one time. But new organizations can supplant them if they aren't serving the communities' needs. And its not like they can restrict amateurs from experimenting and developing new technologies and applications. They don't own or regulate the bands. Amateur radio satellites can be launched without AMSAT, packet radio can be done without TAPR, and mesh can be done without AREDN. Who needs them!

@nonlinear @vertigo If you were to set up such a thing, I'd want it to follow IETF procedures (where it makes sense to) and perhaps even re-use their code (the whole thing is open source).

This allows that a) it's a project about producing ham radio specs and not a project about organizing a system to produce ham radio specs, b) it's familiar to people that have worked in IETF before so there can be some interop between the groups, c) quicker to bootstrap.

@nonlinear @vertigo is something I've been working on for #HamBSD (although slowly at the moment, waiting for the AX.25 stack to stabilize first), and there are also some standards looking at encoding callsigns in MAC addresses (which I think need a lot of work, this is good progress but every time you adopt a standard you make it harder to improve in the future)

That's the value of IETF's approach; standardize and document only after you can demonstrate at least two interoperable implementations of your protocol (or encoding, or whatever is relevant). That gives you the time to work out all the kinks first, and improves real-world relevance.

Very much this. In my article on NgARN, I proposed such an IETF-inspired entity using ITU-like naming conventions for recommendations[1]. Today, I wouldn't care so much about the RFC and standard naming conventions.

1. Prefixed with A, so that AX.25 would already fit the mold. Went this approach b/c "rfc" and "std" were already taken by IETF, and anything else just grew too long and cumbersome. AX.25 vs ARRFC-3 for example.

@vertigo thanks! Taking a quick look at the link it is long. Looking forward to reading it.


@nonlinear @irl Awesome; I'd be happy to help clarify any confusing elements of the article. I consider myself only a mediocre communicator, so I'm positive that article isn't anywhere near as clear as it could be in some places.

@vertigo The naming of standards wouldn't be my primary concern. More the operation of working groups, their charters, communication, decision making processes, etc. @nonlinear

@vertigo @nonlinear I would like to include documentation like this for #HamBSD in the man pages. I'm adding a new section 7H for amateur radio concepts. I don't intend for this to be the authoritative location for standards, but to be enough information to know where to look for the real standard and examples of how to use the modes using included software, or how to develop software to use those modes.

@vertigo Which modes are you looking at? I've had good luck going to the appropriate ITU docs but first you have to figure out the ITU designation.

Throb is an example; another is DAMA operation in packet radio, etc.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!