6.44 - External Wireless Interface REV. B (Includes 6.21, 6.42, & 7.2 Tables Changes)
Justification:
NEW REVISION “B” - 01/13/2023
New DGN’s request and protocol for wireless devices communications for the RV-C.
All DNG’s listed below are Tentative until this RV-C submission is approved.
REVISION C NOTES:
• Additional changes and updates were made based on objections. See proposed changes in Yellow.
• Additional changes as of 1/13 were satisfied and are in Red/Yellow.
• Additional Changes as of 1/14 are in Orange to cover some small corrections
• Due to the number of changes, the old OB submission will be moved to the “Dead Submission Section.” On the RV-C. It can be referenced here:
<a href="http://www.rv-c.com/node/666"> 6.44 Exteral Wireless Interface REV A </A>
• Section 6.21.1 AC Output - Updated to Reflect Wireless Proposal (see end of the document)
• Section 6.42 DC System Disconnect & Bridge - Updated to Reflect Wireless Proposal (see end of the document)
• Table 7.2 Default Source Address Table Update - Updated to Reflect Wireless Proposal (see end of the document)
Please Sign in to View
Log in to view member-only content.
If you believe you are receiving this message in error contact us at memberservices@rvia.org.
David Tenney Member for 17 years
All of the Connection Types listed in Table 6.44b values 1 to 6 are registered trade marks, not just Bluetooth®. The proper capitalization of value 6 in Table 6.44b is MODnet®.
RV-C Admin Member for 4 years 7 months
The attachment has been updated to reflect this request. Thanks!
William Lang Member for 4 years 2 months
OBJECTION - Bluetooth(r) is a registered trademark and as such, should always be indicated as such with the registered symbol.
RV-C Admin Member for 4 years 7 months
Hello Bill, The submission has been updated with the trademark. Thanks for pointing that out.
Martin Perlot Member for 2 months 2 weeks
OBJECTION - Found another typo. In BROKER_CONNECTION_STATUS, Byte 2 "Substring Index" does not belong. Byte 3 "Connection Text Identifier Length" should be Byte 2.
Martin Perlot Member for 2 months 2 weeks
Proposed Minor Edit. In BROKER_INITIATION_STATUS, the "Pairing" data item, I propose changing "2 = Device Found, Pairing", to "2 = Device Found, Pairing Requested". This makes it more clear the distinction between step 2 (asking the responder to pair) and step 3 (the responder has accepted the request).
David Tenney Member for 17 years
Edits to REVB: 1) Modify Byte 2 entries in Tables 6.44.2b, 6.44.5b to be consistent with Tables 6.44.3b, 6.44.4b. 2) Table 6.44b Value 6 Definition "MODnet (DBTech, USPTO 90293345)" is not consistent with other Definitions (i.e. not listed as Bluetooth (Bluetooth SIG, USPTO 76054633), Wi-Fi (Wi-Fi Alliance, USPTO 88481486), etc.). Actions: Delete partial Definition (DBTech, USPTO 90293345) or add equivalent Definitions to all entries in Table 6.44b. Correct capitalization to MODnet.
Martin Perlot Member for 2 months 2 weeks
Regarding #2. Here's the concern. If you do a search for "modnet" on the internet, you will get hits for - a Modbus/Ethernet protocol for PLCs, - an old PLC protocol that competed with Modbus. And you get zero hits on the dBTech protocol. We need to reference something that identifies what we're talking about. This is not a problem for Bluetooth and Wifi, which are well known. Perhaps we should just set aside MODnet until dbTech has something published that we can reference? It's not a big deal to add it later.
David Tenney Member for 17 years
All objections satisfied using Rev:B submission with item 1) edits. Item 2) is fine with your recommended Definition so we can move forward. Not acceptable setting aside the MODnet Connection Type Value number assignment.