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

RE: [bacnet-ip-wg] Add. AI action items

Expand Messages
  • Coleman Brumley
    Carl, How about Network_Interface_Name ? Commonly, the NIC Identifier is the MAC address, and I m afraid that would cause confusion. I m OK with those
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 21, 2012
    • 0 Attachment

      Carl,

       

      How about "Network_Interface_Name"? Commonly, the NIC Identifier is the MAC address, and I'm afraid that would cause confusion.

       

      I'm OK with those footnote changes and that language already exists in 12.X.29.

       

      Coleman

       

      From: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carl Neilson
      Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:51 PM
      To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [bacnet-ip-wg] Add. AI action items

       

       

      Coleman,

       

      I would prefer “Network_Interface” or “Network_Interface_Identifier” instead of “NIC_Name”.

       

      For the NAT change, I would prefer that the footnote read something like “… and the device is capable of communicating through a NAT device as described in J.7.8."

       

      Carl

       

       

      From: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Coleman Brumley
      Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:44 AM
      To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [bacnet-ip-wg] Add. AI action items

       

       

      IP-WG,

       

      From the IP-WG and SSPC discussions in Atlanta, there were two action items for the Add. AI (Network Port):

       

      1) Address comment key 5427 (Addition of a "NIC Name" property).

      2) Annex J NAT traversal changes and language (comment key 5449).

       

      I've completed item #1, and here is the proposed new property name and language. In the property table, this property is optional.

      12.X.18 NIC_Name

      This property, of type CharacterString, indicates the network interface card (NIC) name to which this port is bound.

      If this property is writable, then a successful write to this property shall set the Changes_Pending property to TRUE. A value written to this property shall become effective when a value of ACTIVATE is written to the Command property. 

       

      All subsequent clauses have been renumbered and the BACnetPropertyIdentifier enumeration has been update d accordingly.

       

      Regarding item #2, in reviewing the language in J.7.8 I now have new discussion points about the comment.

       

      J.7.8, part a says that "...only one device on the local side of the NAT router maybe accessible from the global side." And then goes on to say "The globally accessible device may be either a BBMD or a foreign device." This second part is what is making me pause. The way the language is in the addendum, it assumes that the globally accessible device is always a BBMD, and I think this is the crux of the comment. This is further substantiated by footnote 9, which says "...and the device is capable of functioning as a BBMD in a NAT environment."

       

      So, I propose the following based on the language in J.7.8:

       

      > footnote 9 should be changed to say "...and the device is capable of functioning in a NAT environment."

      > The property BBMD_NAT_Traversal should be changed to "NAT_Traversal"

      > The property BBMD_Global_Address should be changed to "Global_Address"

       

      Further, J.7.8 says that "The globally accessible device will contain a BACnet router to those networks." Since we know that a BACnet router will contain multiple NPOs, then that should be clear and no additional language for J.7.8 should be needed.

       

      Please provide feedback on these thoughts ASAP. I would like to make these changes within the next few days so that any review and other modifications can be finalized prior to the 5-Dec-2012 teleconference. We are under a tight time constraint to get these changes out for letter ballot by 6-Dec-2012 in order to make the Spring review period.

       

      Also, I don't want to spend any more teleconference time on this addendum as I feel that we've reached the point of diminishing returns with the continuous modifications.

       

      Regards,

      Coleman

       

       

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