![]() |
|
|||||||
| RDM General Implementation Discussion General Discussion and questions relating to implementing RDM in a product. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#3 | ||
|
Task Group Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 390
|
Quote:
Technically, NACK is only allowed for GET_COMMAND_RESPONSE and SET_COMMAND_RESPONSE. It doesn't address whether you can NACK an unknown command class. Scott is correct that if you do decide to NACK it, NR_UNSUPPORTED_COMMAND_CLASS is the correct NACK reason code to use. One quirk of the standard: Per table 6-7 you can never NACK a discovery request. That means if you get an unknown PID with a discovery command class, all you can do is drop it since NACK is not allowed. I'm not sure this was the intended purpose, but that's how it's written. (The original motivation was to ensure that Discover Unique Branch, Mute, and Unmute were always handled immediately). Quote:
There are three lengths in RDM: 1: The "Message Length" Field in the packet. 2: The PDL field in the packet (should be exactly "Message Length" minus 24). 3: The number of bytes you actually receive with your UART (should be "Message Length" plus 2). If all 3 don't match, then some part of the packet has been corrupted in transit. It's common to see this happen. The checksum used in RDM is relatively weak. Because it's an additive checksum, if a 0x00 gets added or dropped from the packet, the checksum won't change. It also can't detect many two-bit errors. That means if a communication error occurs (RF noise, loose connection, UART Error), or a splitter/hub drops one or more bytes, the checksum can't reliably detect it. The only way you have to know if this has happened is to verify that the lengths all match. |
||
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 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 |