E1.20 RDM (Remote Device Management) Protocol Forums

E1.20 RDM (Remote Device Management) Protocol Forums (http://www.rdmprotocol.org/forums/index.php)
-   RDM General Implementation Discussion (http://www.rdmprotocol.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   When is a different start code allowed? (http://www.rdmprotocol.org/forums/showthread.php?t=585)

berntd August 27th, 2008 07:38 PM

When is a different start code allowed?
 
Hello all
I have 2 products here that state that they both comply with RDM but when I try to detect the responder with my controller, nothing happens.

In fact, my sniffer does not even detect any RDM packets if these 2 units communicate.
I then looked at the data manually and found a start code that is not 0xCC.

Could someone please clarify when it is allowed to state RDM on a product but use a non RDM start code for all packets?

If this is permissable, then who assigns these other start codes and under what conditions?

Kind Regards
Bernt

sblair August 27th, 2008 08:08 PM

Bernt,

It would actually help us if you could provide details on the products in question. One of the main goals of this site is to help serve as a clearinghouse for RDM compatability information and to help the Manufacturers work together to address any issues.

There is a lot of product out there that was built to draft versions of RDM. We intentionally decided to not choose the official RDM Start Code until after the Standard was finished. This has helped keep the draft versions from creating problems with the final version of the Standard.

There are no RDM police to control when someone states something is "RDM" or not.

What Start Code did you see the traffic under? 0xF0 was the prototyping Start Code we used in all the draft documents. The list of registered Start Codes can be found at: http://www.esta.org/tsp/working_grou...rnateCodes.php

Again, if you can provide specifics on the gear, then I might already have information on what protocol or version of RDM is being used.

berntd August 27th, 2008 08:29 PM

Hi Scott,

I understand your point but please understand that I am somewhat restrained with what I can and can't write here in the forum. I am not allowed to mention any specific equipment details. It is not my decision but somehow I can understand it.

The start code I see is indeed 0xF0. I see it on professional equipment that is for brand new and for sale. These are not prototypes.


Does this mean that new responders should listen tyo 0xF0 and 0xCC for a start code?

When was this transition made?

Kind regards
Bernt



Quote:

Originally Posted by sblair
Bernt,

It would actually help us if you could provide details on the products in question. One of the main goals of this site is to help serve as a clearinghouse for RDM compatability information and to help the Manufacturers work together to address any issues.

There is a lot of product out there that was built to draft versions of RDM. We intentionally decided to not choose the official RDM Start Code until after the Standard was finished. This has helped keep the draft versions from creating problems with the final version of the Standard.

There are no RDM police to control when someone states something is "RDM" or not.

What Start Code did you see the traffic under? 0xF0 was the prototyping Start Code we used in all the draft documents. The list of registered Start Codes can be found at: http://www.esta.org/tsp/working_grou...rnateCodes.php

Again, if you can provide specifics on the gear, then I might already have information on what protocol or version of RDM is being used.


sblair August 27th, 2008 08:40 PM

Bernt,

There is a lot of product out there that shipped using draft versions of RDM. The problem is that there were a number of different draft versions that all had radical differences between them at the protocol level. Simply put, they are incompatible at many levels besides just the Start Code itself. That is the risk of shipping product with draft versions. I spoke out on the issue as much as I could so that users would be aware of the situation of buying "RDM" product at that time.

I understand your situation of not being able to mention the specific gear on here. If you would like to message me privately on here then I can probably put you directly in touch with the right person at that manufacturer to speak with.

The final version of RDM was actually published in June 2006. Companies that had adopted the very early draft versions in their own products and had it in a lot of their products by the time the Standard released are the ones that have the most challenge as they have to update their code in a lot of products all at once.

berntd August 27th, 2008 08:57 PM

Hi Scott,

I sent you a Privete Message.

Regards
Bernt

prwatE120 August 28th, 2008 01:21 AM

Educating Manufacturers
 
Hi

I am responsible for the RDM demo areas at both PLASA and LDI.

These displays specifically aim to show interoperability between multiple manufacturers and iron out areas of differing interpretation of the standard.

If you (or Scott) contact me off list with the details, I will also try and educate the companies concerned.

Whilst there are a small number of products shipped by Howard Eaton Lighting that used the draft RDM start code, we made no claims that they were compliant with the final standard, and any customer is welcome to contact us for an appropriate upgrade.



Peter Willis

prwatE120 September 16th, 2008 03:00 PM

Berntd

I spoke to the manufacturer concerned at PLASA, without referencing yiur specific report. They are aware that a number of their products have shipped (and are still shipping) with code that follows one of the drafts of the standard rather than the ANSI release. Such products generally allow firmware updates and they are working towards ANSI compliant code for these. I suggest you contact them directly to register for new firmware when it becomes available.

Peter Willis


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.