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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old February 24th, 2016   #1
prwatE120
Task Group Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 180
Default Response to GET:QUEUED MESSAGE when NACKing query

If a controller sends a GET:QM to a responder, what PID should appear in the responders reply when the responder is NACKing the query?

Reasons for the NACK might be Format Error, Data out of Range etc.
prwatE120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2016   #2
ericthegeek
Task Group Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 358
Default

I ran into this when I was implementing queued messages also.

My conclusion is that if you are NACK'ing the GET QM, then you should have the QM PID in the response.

If the controller sees another PID in the response (say IDENTIFY_DEVICE), then it will assume that it just retrieved a queued NACK for an Identify that it sent in the past, rather than realizing that it's actually a NACK for the GET QM.

A controller probably should accept STATUS_MESSAGES in the PID also, although in my implementation I only put the STATUS_MESSAGES PID in the response when I'm ACK'ing a GET:QM.
ericthegeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2016   #3
sblair
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 417
Send a message via AIM to sblair Send a message via MSN to sblair
Default

Agree with Eric here. The only logical thing to respond in the NACK with is QM.
__________________
Scott M. Blair
RDM Protocol Forums Admin
sblair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2016   #4
prwatE120
Task Group Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 180
Default

I have also coded along the lines that Eric has, and reply with QM as the PID in the NACK.

We might all think it is logical, but it is not defined behaviour as per the E1.20 document, which states the response to a QM shall be a STATUS_MESSAGE response.

10.3.1 "A responder with no messages queued shall respond to a QUEUED_MESSAGE message with a STATUS_MESSAGES response. "

Where do we state that this does not apply to a NACK from a responder with no messages queued ?

Are we happy to allow either PID in NACK responses, and add this behaviour to an E1.20 erratta ?

prwatE120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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
E1.37-1 RDM Message Extensions document in Public Review sblair RDM General Implementation Discussion 2 December 13th, 2010 03:11 PM
Status Message Markers hamish RDM General Implementation Discussion 4 December 9th, 2010 11:12 PM
Additional Status Message ID request? berntd RDM General Implementation Discussion 3 October 28th, 2009 07:28 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.