|
|
|||||||
| RDM Interpretation Questions Discussion and questions relating to interpreting and understanding the E1.20 RDM Standard. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
July 29th, 2024
|
#1 |
|
Task Group Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15
|
Sub device field handling
I have a responder with no sub devices. If I receive a command from a controller such as GET_DMX_START_ADDRESS, but that command has a non-zero sub device field, I'm thinking I should respond with a NACK sub device out of range response. Is there another way to interpret this?
|
|
|
|
July 30th, 2024
|
#2 |
|
Task Group Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 390
|
That is the correct interpretation in my view.
If a responder has no sub-devices, it should NACK any request that has a non-zero sub-device field. The NACK Reason Code should be NR_SUB_DEVICE_OUT_OF_RANGE |
|
|
|
|
July 30th, 2024
|
#3 |
|
Task Group Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15
|
Thanks Eric. I was just looking through the draft E1.20 document and I see that it clarifies this point and agrees with our interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Handling incorrect messages | eldoMS | RDM General Implementation Discussion | 7 | September 2nd, 2011 01:55 PM |
| Correctly handling ACK_OVERFLOW | nomis52 | RDM General Implementation Discussion | 13 | January 29th, 2011 09:25 PM |
| ACK_TIMER Handling | ericthegeek | RDM General Implementation Discussion | 8 | January 20th, 2011 08:15 PM |
| Command Class / Parameter ID mismatch handling | dangeross | RDM Interpretation Questions | 2 | April 16th, 2009 01:39 PM |
Linear Mode
