Jul 30View SourceWe are the verge of adding so much optionality to this object that it has the potential to be an interoperability nightmare.I agree with Carl’s use case, but I also agree that it adds an element, which if we’re not careful, can lead to some confusion for implementers. Because, you know, there’s not enough confusion with this object already.Anyway, let’s get an idea of what (albeit limited) audience wants and we’ll go from there. Sounds like we have 2 against and 1 for so far. I’m abstaining until we get some more feedback.Regards,ColemanOn 7/19/13 12:13 PM, "Carl Neilson" wrote:
It is interoperable in that anyone would be able to easily determine which ports the product has, and be able to enable / disable, check MAC addresses, IP address etc.
So if I make a BACnet <-> N2 gateway and there are two ports, and one says N2. I am pretty sure that the user will be able to figure out what the second port is doing.
I fail to see how this would not be interoperable.
Regarding use for non-BACnet ports:
All BACnet devices shall contain one Network Port object per BACnet port. It is a local matter whether, or not, the Network Port object is used for non-BACnet ports.
If the Network_Type is PTP or non-BACnet, then this property shall be read only and contain a value of 0.
I understand that this would be useful to Delta (or perhaps to any other single vendor), but how is it useful interoperably?
Seems to me that the Network Port object is too complicated as it is, and this adds another layer of complexity. For example the introductory sentence in 12.X says
The Network Port object provides access to the configuration and properties of network ports of a device. All BACnet devices shall contain one Network Port object per port.
So if “non-BACnet” becomes a legal value, does that mean that I MUST have a Network Port object for EVERY port, BACnet or not? Does that include my debug RS-232 port? My VPN virtual ports?
What value would the required Network_Number property have for a proprietary port? If my device is a BACnet router, Network_Number is required writable.
Would Reliability and Out_Of_Service be expected to function for “non-BACnet”?
Would Command (ACTIVATE, RESTART_PORT, etc) be expected to function for “non-BACnet”?
And similar details for the remaining properties and language of the Addendum
Our development team is looking at the Network Port object and they have requested the ability to mark the object as being a non-BACnet port.
The Network_Type field allows proprietary values, but there is not a standard one that indicates that the port is in use for a non-BACnet purpose. If we could add in “non-BACnet” as a Network_Type, then it would be clear. And other vendor’s products would be able to tell that the port is in use but not for BACnet and would not represent it as proprietary media BACnet port.
Carl Neilson, Project Manager
Delta Controls Inc.
The information contained in this message is privileged and intended only for the recipients named. If the reader is not a representative of the intended recipient, any review, dissemination or copying of this message or the information it contains is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and attachments.