Apparent incorrect response to MULTI_CHANNEL


#1

I have a user log from the CT101 thermostat which appears to respond incorrectly to the multi channel request. This requests using the MULTI_CHANNEL_CMD_ENCAP, but we get a response using command 0x06 which I believe is the old (deprecated) MULTI_INSTANCE_CMD_ENCAP encapsulation which is not specified in the public standard.

If I understand the V1 format it did not include the source and destination endpoints - just a channel ID, but this response appears to have the V3 structure with both endpoints specified.

The device reports COMMAND_CLASS_MULTI_CHANNEL as version 3 earlier in the interrogation process and is clearly accepting the MULTI_CHANNEL_CMD_ENCAP.

Is this a correct response and is there documentation on the older command class (or at least a pointer on how to handle this correctly).

Thanks
Chris


#2

Hi,

A bit off topic, but what tool are you using to parse the serial API?

/Cornelius


#3

Hi,

It seems like the device is not compliant with the specification.

When referring to http://products.z-wavealliance.org/products/1301, multi channel is listed as supported, while multi instance is not.

Best regards,
Crilles


#4

It’s an online tool I wrote for parsing the logs from openHAB (http://cd-jackson.com/index.php/openhab/zwave-log-viewer). Note that the names of some command classes etc is still based on old information ;).

Just to be clear, you mean the CT101 is not compliant (which appears to be the case given the above response)? However it seems to have a certification according to your link - or do you mean that the request itself is non compliant in some way?


#5

Very nice!:+1: I like it :slight_smile:


#6

To be clear, the CT101 is not compliant, it should not respond to a multi channel encapsulated frame with a frame with a multi instance command identifier. The rule is that a device must answer-as-asked, this if receiving an encapsulated frame, it must reply with the same encapsulation.

Furthermore the response is not not a multi instance as you pointed out yourself, but a multi channel, with an incorrect command identifier.