Let's be clear here. I'm not squabbing over who's getting along with who.
I'm talking about the fact that ARRL has established LOTW based on a set of
principles and guidelines (found
here<http://trustedqsl.sourceforge.net/lotwspec.pdf>).
This document is mostly about the security needed for LOTW to be viewed as
viable by its potential users. The physical design of the database was done
in a manner to support those guidelines and principles. A strong
authorization process is a major part of the guidelines referenced, and a
major part of the LOTW database design. To remove this piece of LOTW (as
Pete has suggested) would require a major redesign of the database
software.
That's why my earlier post suggested that the process happen in the opposite
direction from what Pete first suggested. It would be easier to add the
functionality of identifying contest QSO's in the LOTW database than it
would be to remove the security requirements. If logs get into LOTW, and
those qso's are marked as contest qso's, then it would be easy to pull that
data out for the contest sponsor.
Granted, this doesn't address the problem that Pete is trying to get
around. While I agree with Pete's philosophy, I just don't see that
happening quickly. ARRL has invested a lot in the current system. Dumping
one of its major "founding philosophies" isn't going to be done without
considerable thought and deliberation
73 de Al, KE1FO
-----
Visit my amateur radio contesting blog at ke1fo.wordpress.com..
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:17 PM, <ve4xt@mts.net> wrote:
> Not sure why who sends what is relevant.
>
> The question, I don't think, should be who sent the log but rather "Did a
> QSO take place?"
>
> If it did, as verified by the log checking process, it should be entered as
> a QSO.
>
> A way to merge verified contest logs securely into LOTW is a good thing.
> The key, I think, is to make
> that process available only to sponsors, not to any Tom, Dick or Harry.
>
> Hopefully, we can all be above petty arguments about who gets along with
> whom.
>
> 73, kelly
> ve4xt
>
> >
> > From: "Alfred Frugoli" <alfred.frugoli@gmail.com>
> > Date: 2008/05/27 Tue AM 10:25:52 CDT
> > To: "Pete Smith" <n4zr@contesting.com>
> > CC: Robert Naumann <w5ov@w5ov.com>, cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Growing New Contesters with LOTW - suddenly
> it's
> > 1977again
> >
> > Pete,
> >
> > What I don't see is how a cross checked log from a contest sponsor meets
> the
> > current ARRL/LOTW security standards. The log has not been encrypted by
> the
> > log submitter. It was sent as a plain text (ok cabrillo) file to the
> > contest sponsor, who makes an assumption that the data is from someone in
> > the real world who actually made these contacts. Yes, the contacts are
> > cross checked (just as they are in LOTW), but it's the verification of
> the
> > original sender that is missing.
> >
> > 73 de Al, KE1FO
> >
> > -----
> > Visit my amateur radio contesting blog at ke1fo.wordpress.com.
> >
> > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > At 09:55 AM 5/27/2008, Alfred Frugoli wrote:
> > >
> > >> I do, however, see the possibility of things going the other way. At
> > >> least
> > >> for ARRL sponsored contests, all electronic logs have to go through
> LOTW,
> > >> with a special tag in the file that marks them as contest logs. Then
> ARRL
> > >> exports the contest data from LOTW and does their electronic massaging
> to
> > >> get final scores. CQWW could do the same. The catch is that every
> > >> entrant
> > >> sending an electronic log would have to be signed up for LOTW and
> develop
> > >> the skills to get their log encrypted and uploaded. As we've seen
> from
> > >> the
> > >> initial rollout of LOTW, there is a fair amount of resistance to the
> > >> signup
> > >> process, especially in countries outside the US.
> > >>
> > >> I too hope that LOTW becomes more functional - I'd love to get my WAZ
> > >> Award,
> > >> which I have all the QSO's for through LOTW. I just don't see any of
> this
> > >> coming any time soon
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > I guess I should have expected this topic to devolve into another
> fruitless
> > > round of LOTW-bashing.
> > >
> > > But seriously, guys -- with good will on both sides and a minimal
> > > additional effort, the way to implement this is to get the contest
> sponsors
> > > and LOTW to work together. The contest sponsor has a file containing
> all
> > > cross-check-verified QSOs; how hard can it be to put that data in a
> format
> > > that LOTW can accept, and for LOTW to enter it in its database just
> like any
> > > other data transfer from another trusted server?
> > >
> > > 73, Pete N4ZR
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|