Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

431RE: [bacnet-ip-wg] Network Ports

Expand Messages
  • Coleman Brumley
    Jul 21, 2014

      OK, we will schedule telcos after the end of the PPR period. Let’s shoot for the first week in September.


      PROTOCOL is fine with me, thanks for the explanation.




      From: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com]
      Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 1:17 PM
      To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [bacnet-ip-wg] Network Ports



      Protocol vs data link - Protocol was chosen because it will be used for any layer in the protocol stack except for the top layer (when BACnet) and the bottom layer. Data link doesn't work well as it implies a specific layer in the protocol stack.

      IPv4 works.

      I would like a telco if only to ensure general consensus of those that care. But we can have it after the PPR closes.


      ------ Original message------

      From: 'Coleman Brumley' bacnet_cb@polarso...

      Date: Fri, Jul 18, 2014 8:12 AM

      To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com;

      Subject:RE: [bacnet-ip-wg] Network Ports


      Sorry for the delay in getting to this.

      Overall, I like the direction and your proposed changes. I especially like that it won’t prevent the NPO from going out as is.

      I’m in favor of the hierarchical concept and it seems to address the concerns you voiced in Seattle. One minor comment, though: instead of PROTOCOL for the Port_Type, does DATA _LINK make sense?

      The only comment I have about dropping the BACnet_ prefix is that “IP_” should now be “IPv4_”. Unless you were being sarcastic, I don’t think that proposed change, in light of your other proposed changes, is controversial at all. The history is that BACnet_IP_* was named as such because Annex J uses BACnet/IP throughout. But, since we’re moving towards allowing more agnostic elements, then I’m all for getting rid of “BACnet_” in the property names for both IPv4 and IPv6.

      Since you suggested we let Draft 5 go as is, I don’t feel we have a pressing need t o resume teleconferences at this point. Thoughts?


      From: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com]
      Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 6:39 PM
      To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [bacnet-ip-wg] Network Ports [1 Attachment]

      [Attachment(s) from Carl Neilson included below]
      In Seattle I promised to get a proposal for your review on how we could allow the NPO to handle complex network setups.

      Here is that proposal building Dave Robin’s idea of having hierarchical NPOs.

      After fleshing this out, I am relatively confident that we can let the NPO go forward as is, and achieve our goals via changes in a future addendum.

      I look forward to hearing everyone’s opinions on the proposed direction.

      One controversial change that I do suggest is renamin g all of the IP settings which are not BACnet specific by removing the “BACnet_” prefix.

      [cid:image001.png@01CFA276.D13C3BE0]Carl Neilson
      Chair, SSPC 135 (aka The BACnet Committee)
      direct: +1.604.575.5913

    • Show all 4 messages in this topic