From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Sailer Subject: Re: callsign limit Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 21:33:54 +0200 Message-ID: <1149190435.25319.14.camel@unreal> References: <200605310927.56706.vk3heg@iinet.net.au> <20060531093716.GA21395@cloud.net.au> <620c90570605310403o1e4b94bcgf4ab922ef26983e4@mail.gmail.com> <20060531111919.GA22980@cloud.net.au> <20060601014047.GB27504@linux-mips.org> <447ED7B2.3070701@sktc.net> <20060601150854.GA19527@linux-mips.org> <20060601185228.GC10812@linux-mips.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20060601185228.GC10812@linux-mips.org> Sender: linux-hams-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Ralf Baechle DL5RB Cc: "Curt, WE7U" , "David D. Hagood" , linux-hams@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 19:52 +0100, Ralf Baechle DL5RB wrote: > Yes and no. I don't think anything tries to follow the new spec to the > letter but quite a few of it's elements have made it into actual > implementations. Or the other way round. Quite a few implementation practices have made it into the 2.2 spec, without making sure the 2.2 spec is actually self-consistent. 73 Tom