[robocup-small] New Referee Box Protocol

[Christopher Head]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:34:41 +0100
Michael Eischer <michael.eischer at robotics-erlangen.de> wrote:

> > Actually, in most packets, neither one changes, probably only once
> > per second the data will change. But because there might be packet
> > loss, we have to send both parts in every packet. So does it help
> > to have multiple messages? We can split it up if it’s useful, but
> > the command part is so small it seemed easier to just leave it
> > inside the main message.
> I meant to include the command and the status in one packet, but in 
> different submessages to highlight which timestamp the data belongs
> to, just in case of having to timestamps.

OK, that makes sense. However, the packet timestamp is associated with
the whole packet, not just the status fields (after all those fields
probably don’t change either between most pairs of packets—only about
once per second), so it doesn’t make sense to put that field in the
status fields section. So if we’re doing that, really, there’s only one
field—command—that has a separate timestamp, plus its counter. So those
could go in a nested message, and then you have stage and
stage_time_left (which are sort of separate, IMO they should not affect
the Command stuff) and a couple of team info messages, and the
whole-packet timestamp. Sound good?

Chris