A few (hopefully) minor comments on addendum ai draft 9
Just a few (hopefully) minor comments on addendum ai draft 9 noted while reading an earlier draft prior to the last conference call.
1 - Page 8, 12.X.12
I think it would be clearer if DISCARD_CHANGES were changed from "...this object shall revert to the set of property values that were contained in this object when Changes_Pending was first set to TRUE."
"...this object shall revert to the set of property values that were contained in this object immediately prior to when Changes_Pending was first set to TRUE."
We should make it absolutely clear that we are talking about the original configuration. As it is written, someone could take it to mean all but the first change made should be reversed.
2 - Page 9, 12.X.12
I think we should specifically say in RESTART_SLAVE_DISCOVERY that this discovery process must run in the background and new commands must be processed while the discovery process is running after the Command property returns to IDLE. The current language is not sufficient to prevent someone carelessly changing the Command property to IDLE and then failing any further commands until the discovery is finished.
3 - Page 3
Add a definition for "Network Port" in clause 3.1. We have definitions for "network" and "network resource".
4 - Page 14, 12.X.34
If we are going to require that Max_Master accept the range of 0 to 127 when writable, then we also need to describe the expected behavior if (A) Max_Master is set lower than the device MAC address, or (B) Max_Master is set to zero. Personally I think an error should be allowed when a write less than the current address is attempted (i.e. when activated).
5 - Page 16, 12.X.44
I am not sure what Event_Enable (T,T,T) means for an object that only supports faults. Are we requiring that the object send both an OFFNORMAL and FAULT event? Why not make (F,T,T) the minimum so it is clear that fault reporting (only) is sufficient?
6 - Page 16, 12.X.48
Looks like a typo: "...message text values of the last for..."
There may be more, but this is as far as I was able to get.
Johnson Controls, Inc.