E1.20 RDM (Remote Device Management) Protocol Forums  

Go Back   E1.20 RDM (Remote Device Management) Protocol Forums > RDM Developer Forums > RDM Interpretation Questions

RDM Interpretation Questions Discussion and questions relating to interpreting and understanding the E1.20 RDM Standard.

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old February 16th, 2012   #6
sblair
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 441
Send a message via AIM to sblair Send a message via MSN to sblair
Default

Quote:
Scott, I didn't know QUEUED_MESSAGE was optional for the controller; thanks. I do try to handle both responder ACK_TIMER implementations anyway (http://www.rdmprotocol.org/forums/showthread.php?t=731) and RDM's lack of (TFTP/HTTP-style) sequence recovery.
As I said, my belief is that everyone SHOULD use QUEUED_MESSAGES, however it is not strictly required for the controller to implement them. Of course it will be a far better controller that DOES implement them. Either way, it doesn't mean the controller can't just wait for the ACK_TIMER to expire and send the PID request again and *hopefully* the responder will have it available immediately to provide at that point.
__________________
Scott M. Blair
RDM Protocol Forums Admin
sblair is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RDM Compatibility Corner at PLASA 2010 prwatE120 RDM General Implementation Discussion 0 September 4th, 2010 05:25 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.