6.44 - External Wireless Interface REV. B (Includes 6.21, 6.42, & 7.2 Tables Changes)

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.

• 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:

6.44 Exteral Wireless Interface REV 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)

6.44_External_Interface_REVC_ Update_011422.docx7.34 MB

All of the Connection Types

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®.

The attachment has been

The attachment has been updated to reflect this request.


OBJECTION - Bluetooth(r) is a

OBJECTION - Bluetooth(r) is a registered trademark and as such, should always be indicated as such with the registered symbol.

Hello Bill, The submission

Hello Bill,
The submission has been updated with the trademark. Thanks for pointing that out.

OBJECTION - Found another

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.

Proposed Minor Edit. In

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).

Edits to REVB: 1) Modify Byte

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.

Regarding #2. Here's the

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.

All objections satisfied

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.