E1.20 RDM (Remote Device Management) Protocol Forums  

Go Back   E1.20 RDM (Remote Device Management) Protocol Forums > RDM Developer Forums > RDM Interpretation Questions
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

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 June 13th, 2013   #15
sblair
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 441
Send a message via AIM to sblair Send a message via MSN to sblair
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthegeek View Post
If should have been written another way to better reflect the intent, and to allow NACK'ing invalid requests, but at this point we're kinda stuck with it as it's written.

Fortunately, it's a non-issue from what I've seen in real-world systems. Many people first discover this issue when they run the OLA Responder Tests...
We're only talking about Mute/UnMute here since it really isn't possible to NACK a BRANCH even if we wanted to.

Since Discovery works on a positive acknowledgement system if the controller doesn't get an ACK back to a Mute/UnMute then it sends it again. That covers the noise/corrupt message issue and is even written into the pseudo-code in the standard to try multiple times before moving on.

If the controller is sending improperly formatted messages it's likely not going to work right with anything as the Mute/UnMute commands coming from the console are identical for all devices.
__________________
Scott M. Blair
RDM Protocol Forums Admin
sblair is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks


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


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:46 PM.


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