STATUS_MESSAGES - E1.20 RDM (Remote Device Management) Protocol Forums

ericthegeek · October 19th, 2009

> Is it implied that a controller will leave the device
> alone if it receives and ACK_TIMER?

No, it's not implied. Many controllers will not send anything else to a responder until the ACK_TIMER period is over, but technically the ACK_TIMER is only for that specific message. It's perfectly valid to send another request while waiting for the queued message to come back from a previous ACK_TIMER.

If you're too busy doing other things, you can either issue another ACK_TIMER for the new request, or drop the packet.

berntd · October 19th, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericthegeek

> If you're too busy doing other things, you can either issue another ACK_TIMER for the new request, or drop the packet.

In fact, too busy to even listen to packets because interrupts have to be off at some stage.

An "ACK_BUSY" (with a timer) would be rather useful in that instance:-)

Is dropping packets an accepted way of doing this?

Regards
Bernt

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

October 19th, 2009	#1
ericthegeek Task Group Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 390	> Is it implied that a controller will leave the device > alone if it receives and ACK_TIMER? No, it's not implied. Many controllers will not send anything else to a responder until the ACK_TIMER period is over, but technically the ACK_TIMER is only for that specific message. It's perfectly valid to send another request while waiting for the queued message to come back from a previous ACK_TIMER. If you're too busy doing other things, you can either issue another ACK_TIMER for the new request, or drop the packet.