From cfeb420ca90a737925740865d1ede35ad47a491e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: charminULTRA Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 11:42:13 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] Create 2024-02-14-modem-presets.md --- rfcs/2024-02-14-modem-presets.md | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+) create mode 100644 rfcs/2024-02-14-modem-presets.md diff --git a/rfcs/2024-02-14-modem-presets.md b/rfcs/2024-02-14-modem-presets.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6d4e6be --- /dev/null +++ b/rfcs/2024-02-14-modem-presets.md @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +_Using the format from @Tekstrand, as regular template is missing_ + +## RFC + +This Request for Comments (RFC) seeks to address a recurring concern within the Meshtastic community regarding the the existing Meshtastic preset names, for instance "LongFast". Meshtastic employs modem presets in order to allow users to change the behavior of their LoRa radios, affecting maximum potential range, latency, and bandwidth. The naming convention for these modem presets is currently a carryover from Meshtastic "1.0". Most critically, the presets represent a continuum of bandwidth options, rather than strictly "Fast" or "Slow" effects. +### Problem Statement + + The words "Long", "Medium", "Short", "Fast", and "Slow" used in the modem presets do not represent either theoretical or real world implications/effects on LoRa radio peformance. The terms used for the Mesthastic modem presets, such as "LongFast", are misleading. The terminology such as "Fast", "Slow", "Long", and "Short" cause users to assume that each preset has tradeoffs. For example users may assume "MediumFast" is only for moderate (which is not defined or tested) ranges, while also assuming the Slow option will result in slow message sending or some other vague effects. + +The current language complicates user interaction, as there is little reason a user may want maximum range in all scenarios, without understanding that the change in presets may adversely affect the radio's performance, particularly on "LongSlow". + +### Objective + +The primary objective of this RFC is to **initiate a community-driven discussion** aimed at reevaluating the term "channel." By addressing this terminology concern, we aim to enhance clarity, reduce confusion, and improve the overall user experience on the Meshtastic network. +### Considerations + + 1. Terminological Clarity: Any new term should unambiguously describe its intended concept without overlap with existing radio or communication terms. + + 2. User Familiarity: The replacement should leverage terminology familiar to both new and existing users, facilitating ease of adoption. + + 3. Technical Accuracy: The term should accurately reflect the technical nature of Meshtastic's features and functionalities. + + 4. Community Feedback: Emphasizing a collaborative approach, this RFC encourages feedback and suggestions from the Meshtastic community. + + +### Call to Action ++ +We invite all community members to contribute their perspectives, suggestions, and insights regarding the problematic use of "channel". This collaborative effort will ensure that any terminology changes will serve to enhance understanding, usability, and community engagement with Meshtastic. + +This RFC represents an opportunity to refine our language and align more closely with our platform's innovative spirit. Your participation is crucial to achieving a consensus that reflects the diverse experiences and needs of the Meshtastic community. From 322f588cfd1ba996209929d99f943db90b53547d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: charminULTRA Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 11:55:15 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 2/4] Update 2024-02-14-modem-presets.md --- rfcs/2024-02-14-modem-presets.md | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/rfcs/2024-02-14-modem-presets.md b/rfcs/2024-02-14-modem-presets.md index 6d4e6be..bd51783 100644 --- a/rfcs/2024-02-14-modem-presets.md +++ b/rfcs/2024-02-14-modem-presets.md @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -_Using the format from @Tekstrand, as regular template is missing_ +@TEKSTRAND FORMAT (See further down for regular Meshtastic RFC FORMAT IN ADDITION TO THIS) ## RFC @@ -28,3 +28,62 @@ The primary objective of this RFC is to **initiate a community-driven discussion We invite all community members to contribute their perspectives, suggestions, and insights regarding the problematic use of "channel". This collaborative effort will ensure that any terminology changes will serve to enhance understanding, usability, and community engagement with Meshtastic. This RFC represents an opportunity to refine our language and align more closely with our platform's innovative spirit. Your participation is crucial to achieving a consensus that reflects the diverse experiences and needs of the Meshtastic community. + + + + +# Modem Preset renaming + +- Start Date: 2024-02-14 +- RFC PR: [Meshtastic/rfcs#6]([https://github.com/Meshtastic/rfcs/pull/0000](https://github.com/meshtastic/rfcs/pull/6)) +- Affected Components: Pervasive (Docs, Apps, Firmware, Protos) + +## Summary + +The current naming convention of the Modem Presets is misleading, and does not represent theoretical or real-world effects. The terminology such as "Fast", "Slow", "Long", and "Short" cause users to assume that each preset has tradeoffs. For example users may assume "MediumFast" is only for moderate (which is not defined or tested) ranges, while also assuming the Slow option will result in slow message sending or some other vague effects. + +## Motivation + +We want to change this because it will significantly improve user understanding and expectations around modem presets. + +## Ecosystem Impact + +Pervasive (Docs, Apps, Firmware, Protos) + +## Protocol Buffer Changes + +Yes, requires full coordinate from Docs team and Developer team. + +## Technical Details + +Replace words in all locations with new terms. + +### Compatibility Considerations + +Unclear, I'm not a developer. + +### Security Considerations + +Unclear, I'm not a developer. + +### Performance Considerations + +Unclear, I'm not a developer. + +## Drawbacks + +None. + +## Rationale and Alternatives + +Has been a to-do for 2-3 years now. + +## Prior Art + +N/A + +## Unresolved Questions + +- What aspects of the proposal need further discussion or exploration during the RFC process? +- Are there technical challenges or uncertainties that need to be addressed? + From ded2ca61081ddf9bdd020583559538996512b894 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: charminULTRA Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 11:59:57 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 3/4] Update 2024-02-14-modem-presets.md --- rfcs/2024-02-14-modem-presets.md | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/rfcs/2024-02-14-modem-presets.md b/rfcs/2024-02-14-modem-presets.md index bd51783..ba86c4d 100644 --- a/rfcs/2024-02-14-modem-presets.md +++ b/rfcs/2024-02-14-modem-presets.md @@ -32,6 +32,14 @@ This RFC represents an opportunity to refine our language and align more closely + + + + + + + + # Modem Preset renaming - Start Date: 2024-02-14 From bc599444b1ff3c694a73fbf0d749c810c7604278 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: charminULTRA Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 12:00:39 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 4/4] Update 2024-02-14-modem-presets.md --- rfcs/2024-02-14-modem-presets.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/rfcs/2024-02-14-modem-presets.md b/rfcs/2024-02-14-modem-presets.md index ba86c4d..5249fd6 100644 --- a/rfcs/2024-02-14-modem-presets.md +++ b/rfcs/2024-02-14-modem-presets.md @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ The primary objective of this RFC is to **initiate a community-driven discussion ### Call to Action + -We invite all community members to contribute their perspectives, suggestions, and insights regarding the problematic use of "channel". This collaborative effort will ensure that any terminology changes will serve to enhance understanding, usability, and community engagement with Meshtastic. +We invite all community members to contribute their perspectives, suggestions, and insights regarding the preset naming conventions. This collaborative effort will ensure that any terminology changes will serve to enhance understanding, usability, and community engagement with Meshtastic. This RFC represents an opportunity to refine our language and align more closely with our platform's innovative spirit. Your participation is crucial to achieving a consensus that reflects the diverse experiences and needs of the Meshtastic community.