View Single Post
Old November 12th, 2014   #10
sblair
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 417
Send a message via AIM to sblair Send a message via MSN to sblair
Default

Daniel,

It's a fair suggestion. In the past we have gone away from having Identify expire on it's own as it creates a whole host of user issues, especially for someone that has to go hunting for the piece of gear with the blinky light on it compared to the moving light that is in a very obvious strobe and having the identify expire while in the middle of walking around searching for it.

The route I expect we would probably take in adding something like this would be to create an additional PID that defines the timeout duration so that devices that support a variable duration can be easily identified by the controller up front rather than through trial and error.

There is a new document about to go out for Public Review that adds a whole suite of additional PIDs (BSR E1.37-5) it should be in Public Review by the end of the year. I would suggest putting in a Public Review comment for a new PID for this and anything else you might like to see during the Public Review and it then gets discussed by the entire Task Group and addressed.
__________________
Scott M. Blair
RDM Protocol Forums Admin
sblair is offline   Reply With Quote