Hi Gordon,
Yes, I've reset on both sides (on Pixl, wiping the flash and hard booting before pushing a new config; on the phones, deleting the pairing and powering bluetooth off/on). It's usually pretty clear in the WireShark trace when an existing pairing relationship is present so I'm confident it's forgotten.
Do I understand you correctly that the security configuration in the characteristic is passive (i.e. not used in determining the bonding requirements)? If that's the case then having the possibility to indicate different sets of requirements per characteristics seems over the top as it can never influence the setup.
I've tried using NRF.setSecurity({passkey:"123456", mitm:1, display:1}); and combinations thereof to no avail. As I mentioned it doesn't even appear in a dump() once it is pushed so I'm not sure what's happening.
Espruino is a JavaScript interpreter for low-power Microcontrollers. This site is both a support community for Espruino and a place to share what you are working on.
Hi Gordon,
Yes, I've reset on both sides (on Pixl, wiping the flash and hard booting before pushing a new config; on the phones, deleting the pairing and powering bluetooth off/on). It's usually pretty clear in the WireShark trace when an existing pairing relationship is present so I'm confident it's forgotten.
Do I understand you correctly that the security configuration in the characteristic is passive (i.e. not used in determining the bonding requirements)? If that's the case then having the possibility to indicate different sets of requirements per characteristics seems over the top as it can never influence the setup.
I've tried using
NRF.setSecurity({passkey:"123456", mitm:1, display:1});
and combinations thereof to no avail. As I mentioned it doesn't even appear in adump()
once it is pushed so I'm not sure what's happening.