1 This document also includes the HAN Connected Auxiliary Load Control Switches (HCALCS) Technical Specification, the Prepayment Interface Device (PPMID) Technical Specification (PPMIDTS), and the In Home Display (IHD) Technical Specification (IHDTS)
8 Supplier and Network Operator credentials on the Communications Hub (Gas Proxy) relate to the supply of gas only. These Trust Anchor Cells on a Communications Hub are still required and valid where there is no GSME connected to the SMHAN, but the stores should be populated with Access Control Broker certificates (so ensuring the Gas Proxy functionality, apart from Update Security Credentials, is inoperable)
19 See Section 6.10.3 of ZigBee Document 09-5264-23
20 As defined in Section 6.10 of ZigBee Document 09-5264-23
21 As defined in Sections 6.10.10 and 6.8.4 of ZigBee Document 09-5264-23
22 ZigBee Document 095264
25 The Contingency Key is a second public key held in the Root Certificate (and protected with an encryption key). Its sole purpose is to allow the validation of a specific command that allows direct replacement of the Root Trust Anchor. The command (an Apex Trust Anchor Update message) is signed with a private key (used once only, and only to sign this message) that only the second public key (known as the Contingency Key) can verify and therefore authorise action of.
26 Housley, R., Ashmore, S., and C. Wallace, ‘Trust Anchor Management Protocol (TAMP)’, RFC 5934, August 2010. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5934
32 This is unrelated to the ZSE meaning of ‘joining’
33 The shared secret between the Communications Hub and the Type 2 Device / GSME established when the Device joined the HAN shall be used by the GPF to authenticate with the Device.
34 To avoid duplication of specification, the Use Cases here are grouped together, and the standard Use Case cross reference table is not used.
36 This derivation places a practical limit on the maximum increment between issued sequentially UTRN Counters. An increment of greater than (29 -1) between a UTRN Counter and the next one issued will cause this derivation to be inaccurate
37 See: (1) Verhoeff, J. (1969). Error Detecting Decimal Codes (Tract 29). The Mathematical Centre, Amsterdam. doi:10.1002/zamm.19710510323., (2) Kirtland, Joseph (2001). Identification Numbers and Check Digit Schemes. Mathematical Association of America. p. 153. ISBN 0-88385-720-0. Retrieved August 26, 2011. (3) Salomon, David (2005). Coding for Data and Computer Communications. Springer. p. 56. ISBN 0-387-21245-0. Retrieved August 26, 2011
38 Available from http://www.triple-3.co.uk/sswg/.
39 In some cases where p < 512, this result may be negative. How negative binary numbers are represented in the calculation is an implementation decision, and not a matter for the GBCS since there is no impact on interoperability.