On 9/25/07, Craig Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Post a trace from the online decoder, and we should be able to help you. > > I've made a mistake in describing what I'm doing, it seems. Although I'm > playing with Rifidi because it seems generally better and isn't linked to > any specific vendor, the only client examples I have are vendor specific, > and they'll only talk to their own readers and reader simulators. On port > 1005. The clients do autodiscovery and won't let me talk to Rifidi. >
Is it LLRP in all but port, or some proprietary RFID protocol? If it's not RFID, obviously none of this stuff is going to work without some adapter code that converts LLRP traffic to whatever protocol the reader talks. Any reader exposing any port other than the LLRP TCP port as the only reader protocol is > So I do have a 52K PCAP file that I can mail if anyone wants to have a > look but the ports are wrong for the online decoder, and it seems pretty > clear that there's funny vendor specific stuff going on- manual decoding > is error prone, but the initial packet sent from client to reader is only > 114 bytes and I've taken a fair length of time decoding and checking it, > especially around the stuff that doesn't make sense. I was worried that my > understanding was way off, so it's reassuring having other people say it > seems odd. > Vendor specific is OK if it is in the LLRP vendor extension format. The decoder will just dump hex for those portions. > The problem is that my boss isn't happy to have open source stuff because > of the issues of copyright breach on the one hand and the perceived > requirement to open source anything that in any way uses open source > stuff. I went down the route a couple of years back to use a lovely > library of little utility routines and even had email assurances from one > of the lead contributors that the license it was under (LGPL) allowed us > to call the libraries without opening our code. Didn't help, so I have to > periodically reinvent the wheel. > > Since there's substantial cost to re-inventing the wheel, I'll make > another attempt. If I joined the dotnet effort what would be the > implication? I assume the toolkit will be done as a seperate DLL or > assembly that can be called by our closed code? > The license in use here in all LTK projects is Apache 2.0, not a GPL variant. There's an ocean of difference between the two. I cannot give you legal advice but take a look at the license. -- John. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel
