Discovery process addressing - E1.20 RDM (Remote Device Management) Protocol Forums

sblair · August 2nd, 2024

Hey Milton,

I generally try to write very permissive responders so that even if something is not strictly following the standard I can be accepting of it so it doesn't look like the product is broken, even if it is the controllers fault.

So given that, I believe #1 is completely acceptable as it shouldn't break anything.

I will admit in my own implementations #2 is what would have happened in this corner cause because I first check destination addressing and if it isn't a broadcast or my matching UID then I would have stopped parsing the packet.

#3 is absolutely the wrong thing to do. There should never be a NACK to a UNIQ_BRANCH message. As Eric said, this could cause a break on the line or also in the rush of other responders potentially sending NACK's too it would cause corrupted data and trigger the Controller to start going down invalid branches and could potentially break discovery completely.

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

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Addressing Universes on RDM: Manufacturer PID V ENDPOINT_TO_UNIVERSE	Thierry Dupont	RDM General Implementation Discussion	1	November 20th, 2020 01:37 PM
DMX Addressing when Footprint is Zero	Mark_C	RDM General Implementation Discussion	8	January 17th, 2010 10:47 AM
Auto DMX Addressing via RDM ?!	chamber	RDM General Implementation Discussion	12	November 11th, 2009 12:47 PM
Figure 7-2: Device Discovery Process	mike_k	RDM General Implementation Discussion	2	October 1st, 2009 02:28 PM

August 2nd, 2024	#1
sblair Administrator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 441	Hey Milton, I generally try to write very permissive responders so that even if something is not strictly following the standard I can be accepting of it so it doesn't look like the product is broken, even if it is the controllers fault. So given that, I believe #1 is completely acceptable as it shouldn't break anything. I will admit in my own implementations #2 is what would have happened in this corner cause because I first check destination addressing and if it isn't a broadcast or my matching UID then I would have stopped parsing the packet. #3 is absolutely the wrong thing to do. There should never be a NACK to a UNIQ_BRANCH message. As Eric said, this could cause a break on the line or also in the rush of other responders potentially sending NACK's too it would cause corrupted data and trigger the Controller to start going down invalid branches and could potentially break discovery completely. __________________ Scott M. Blair RDM Protocol Forums Admin