355Re: [bacnet-ip-wg] RE: Network Port Object
- Jul 19, 2013I think I agree. From BACnet's point of view, a non-BACnet port is simply "not in use", not "in use but not BACnet". The big difference between the two is all the related properties and functions that John points out below. Questions like "Can I change its IP address even though it's non-BACnet?" will continue to come up, even after we think we're done. So, I think "In use but not BACnet" is too hard to define and probably should not be allowed.BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, I don't actually see a way to be "not in use" other than setting Out_Of_Service true??? The language refers three times to "enabled Network Port" objects but doesn't say what that means; specifically, how one can be "disabled".Should we just change the proposed of "Non-BACnet" to "Disabled" and solve both problems?DaveOn Jul 19, 2013, at 9:27 AM, "Hartman, John" <jhartman@...> wrote:
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.
<image001.png>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.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>