Apparent incorrect response to MULTI_CHANNEL


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).




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




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

When referring to, multi channel is listed as supported, while multi instance is not.

Best regards,


It’s an online tool I wrote for parsing the logs from openHAB ( 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?


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


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.