Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site petrus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!karn
From: karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn)
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio.packet
Subject: The League Responds
Message-ID: <677@petrus.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 14:28:53 EST
Article-I.D.: petrus.677
Posted: Wed Nov  6 14:28:53 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 07:58:53 EST
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc
Lines: 30

M 11273  JEFF WARD (ARRL,2977)  11/ 6/85   9:49 AM  L:27
KEYS:/REVIEW/DEFENDING MYSELF/
A: 10068     TO: NK6K, ka9q, WA7GXD, ARRL

RE: Message from K1BC

The review of the TNCs that was in November QST was turned in
in March of this year.  Therefore, it does not reflect developments
from this summer or even those of late spring.

At the time that the review was written, we (Jon Bloom and I) did
not know the exact nature of the TAPR protocol problems.  Even now,
when these problems are completely understood, they could hardly
be described to someone in a the context of a product review.  As for
the fact that TNC1 does not support AX.25V2, there were no TNCs
(at that time) that did support the updated protocol.  I agree,
though, that this should have been mentioned.

"ARRL continues to write only glowing reviews."  I wrote the
review, and the notes on the Heath TNC were filled in by Mark
Wilson, AA2Z.  We liked the TNCs, they worked well, they were
by far the best on the market.  The design and manufacture of
the TAPR TNC was a milestone in Amateur Radio, a feat of creativity
and perserverance.  We wanted to end up with a glowing review.

The fix for NOVRAM scrambling that AEA used is, I think, the same
one that was written up in an issue of PSR this year.  I can't
find the exact issue, but someone will remember.

Jeff