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

RE: [bacnet-ip-wg] Network Port Object

Expand Messages
  • Carl Neilson
    Clients should not be required to provide properties during a create; properties that need to be writable need to be writable after create. In our products the
    Message 1 of 11 , Feb 15, 2012

      Clients should not be required to provide properties during a create; properties that need to be writable need to be writable after create.

       

      In our products the NP will be auto-created for each hardware port. For B/IP and B/IPv6, the user is allowed to create and delete these at will. In those that the user creates, the Network_Type field should be writable and restricted to B/IP or B/IPv6.

       

      We can achieve this in a proprietary way, by adding a proprietary property that mirrors Network_Type and is writable. But should I have to?

       

      Carl

       

      From: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Coleman Brumley
      Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 3:04 PM
      To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [bacnet-ip-wg] Network Port Object

       

       

      If the port is created via the CreateObject service, then wouldn't the Network_Type be specified as one of the initial values conveyed in that service?

       

      Do you really want to go from B/IP to MS/TP on the fly?

       

      From: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carl Neilson
      Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 4:54 PM
      To: ba cnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [bacnet-ip-wg] Network Port Object

       

       

       

      In the network port object, the Network_Type property is read-only.

       

      While this makes sense for most port types, it does not make sense for B/IP, B/IPv6, and virtual. In these cases there is no limit to the number that can be created and in creating them, one must have a way to set the Network_Type (which of these three types will the port be)?

       

      Did we make a mistake in requiring this property be read-only?

       

      Carl

    • Carl Neilson
      BACneteers, 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
      Message 2 of 11 , Jul 16, 2013

        BACneteers,

         

        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


        Carl Neilson, Project Manager

        Delta Controls Inc.

        direct:   +1.604.575.5913

         

         

      • Donaldson, Stuart (WA26)
        Carl, What would you propose the description of the non-BACnet type be? Are you saying you want to use the Network Port for some totally unrelated port, so
        Message 3 of 11 , Jul 16, 2013

          Carl,

          What would you propose the description of the non-BACnet type be?  Are you saying you want to use the Network Port for some totally unrelated port, so you can manage some aspects but that overall the port is not BACnet and any use of that particular network port object is proprietary?

           

          -Stuart-

           

          From: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carl Neilson
          Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 12:25 PM
          To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [bacnet-ip-wg] Network Port Object

           

           

          BACneteers,

           

          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


          Carl Neilson, Project Manager

          Delta Controls Inc.

          direct:   +1.604.575.5913

           

           

        • Carl Neilson
          Yes. And also, in the case where a port can be either BACnet or something else (ModBus, KNX, etc), setting the type Network_Type to non-BACnet allows the user
          Message 4 of 11 , Jul 16, 2013

             

            Yes.

             

            And also, in the case where a port can be either BACnet or something else (ModBus, KNX, etc), setting the type Network_Type to non-BACnet allows the user to see  that the port is in use.

             

            Carl

             

            From: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Donaldson, Stuart (WA26)
            Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 1:28 PM
            To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [bacnet-ip-wg] RE: Network Port Object

             

             

            Carl,

            What would you propose the description of the non-BACnet type be?  Are you saying you want to use the Network Port for some totally unrelated port, so you can manage some aspects but that overall the port is not BACnet and any use of that particular network port object is proprietary?

             

            -Stuart-

             

            From: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carl Neilson
            Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 12:25 PM
            To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [bacnet-ip-wg] Network Port Object

             

             

            BACneteers,

             

            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


            Carl Neilson, Project Manager

            Delta Controls Inc.

            direct:   +1.604.575.5913

             

             

          • Hartman, John
            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
            Message 5 of 11 , Jul 19, 2013

              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

               

               

              From: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carl Neilson
              Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 2:25 PM
              To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [bacnet-ip-wg] Network Port Object

               

               

              BACneteers,

               

              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


              Carl Neilson, Project Manager

              Delta Controls Inc.

              direct:   +1.604.575.5913

               

               




              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.
            • David Robin
              I 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
              Message 6 of 11 , Jul 19, 2013
                I 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?

                Dave

                On 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

                 
                 

                From: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carl Neilson
                Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 2:25 PM
                To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [bacnet-ip-wg] Network Port Object

                 
                 

                BACneteers,

                 

                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


                <image001.png>Carl Neilson, Project Manager

                Delta Controls Inc.

                direct:   +1.604.575.5913

                 
                 




                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.


              • Carl Neilson
                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
                Message 7 of 11 , Jul 19, 2013

                   

                  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.

                   

                  For Network_Number:

                   

                  If the Network_Type is PTP or non-BACnet, then this property shall be read only and contain a value of 0.

                   

                  Carl

                   

                   

                  From: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Hartman, John
                  Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 6:27 AM
                  To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [bacnet-ip-wg] RE: Network Port Object

                   

                   

                  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

                   

                   

                  From: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carl Neilson
                  Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 2:25 PM
                  To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [bacnet-ip-wg] Network Port Object

                   

                   

                  BACneteers,

                   

                  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


                  Carl Neilson, Project Manager

                  Delta Controls Inc.

                  direct:   +1.604.575.5913

                   

                   

                   



                  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.

                • Coleman Brumley
                  We are the verge of adding so much optionality to this object that it has the potential to be an interoperability nightmare. I agree with Carl¹s use case, but
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jul 30, 2013
                    We 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,
                    Coleman

                    On 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.

                     

                    For Network_Number:

                     

                    If the Network_Type is PTP or non-BACnet, then this property shall be read only and contain a value of 0.

                     

                    Carl

                     

                     

                    From: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Hartman, John
                    Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 6:27 AM
                    To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [bacnet-ip-wg] RE: Network Port Object

                     

                     

                    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

                     

                     

                    From:bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carl Neilson
                    Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 2:25 PM
                    To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [bacnet-ip-wg] Network Port Object

                     

                     

                    BACneteers,

                     

                    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


                    Carl Neilson, Project Manager

                    Delta Controls Inc.

                    direct:   +1.604.575.5913

                     

                     

                     



                    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.

                  • Michael Osborne
                    I can see Carl s point and agree that it does add another layer of potential confusion. I think we should add it and discuss further in Atlanta. Mike From:
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jul 30, 2013

                      I can see Carl’s point and agree that it does add another layer of potential confusion.  I think we should add it and discuss further in Atlanta.

                       

                      Mike

                       

                      From: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Coleman Brumley
                      Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 1:15 PM
                      To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [bacnet-ip-wg] RE: Network Port Object

                       

                       

                      We 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,

                      Coleman

                       

                      On 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.

                       

                      For Network_Number:

                       

                      If the Network_Type is PTP or non-BACnet, then this property shall be read only and contain a value of 0.

                       

                      Carl

                       

                       

                      From: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Hartman, John
                      Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 6:27 AM
                      To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [bacnet-ip-wg] RE: Network Port Object

                       

                       

                      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

                       

                       

                      From:bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carl Neilson
                      Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 2:25 PM
                      To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [bacnet-ip-wg] Network Port Object

                       

                       

                      BACneteers,

                       

                      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


                      Carl Neilson, Project Manager

                      Delta Controls Inc.

                      direct:   +1.604.575.5913

                       

                       

                       



                      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.





                      ************************************************************************************
                      This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
                      PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses.
                      ************************************************************************************

                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.