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

RE: Network Port Object

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 11 , Jul 16, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      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 2 of 11 , Jul 16, 2013
      • 0 Attachment

         

        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 3 of 11 , Jul 19, 2013
        • 0 Attachment

          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 4 of 11 , Jul 19, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 11 , Jul 19, 2013
            • 0 Attachment

               

              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 6 of 11 , Jul 30, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 11 , Jul 30, 2013
                • 0 Attachment

                  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.