accept only one energy guard

[wursthos]

According to the Specification, only one Energy Guard is allowed to have a binding on the relevant Features of this Use Case.
Right now, we accept bindings of any valid, trusted Energy Guard. Thus, we need to limit and respect the bindings.
Maybe we need to adapt the SPINE layer for this.

[BorisFierlings]

When there are multiple Energy Gards in the network, the user/installer should be able to configure the right one. I guess the device would be enough as identifier, as there will be normally only one Energy Manager per device - but who knows. This configured device could be used in a FeaturePermission to restrict bindings. This is already possible with the current implementation and somthing like this should be possible also after your double binding protection changes.

[wursthos]

Currently, multiple Energy Guards (EG) connected to the same Controllable System (CS) is a known, unsolved issue for LPC/LPP. The specification simply does not define how to handle that situation. Concretely, which EG should get the binding if there is a conflict.

I understand you implemented manually choosing the right EG as a workaround for this problem. It might actually be the best workaround right now.

But as a heads-up: The EEBus Initiative might at some point solve this problem in the specification. At that point, the workaround may no longer be compliant to LPC/LPP.