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

191Re: [bacnet-mstpwg] obtaining an MS/TP Frame Type

Expand Messages
  • Dave Robin
    Jan 6, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
      When I approached ASHRAE with this idea a while ago, we tentatively agreed to do exactly as Kerry outlined below.  i.e. they get the request, forward it to us for technical evaluation, and then they respond to the requestor.  They also agreed to keep the listing in a spreadsheet exactly as they do for vendor IDs.  And, just as for vendor IDs, they will forward notice of new ones to the current chair and to Mike Newman who will update bacnet.org.

      In other words, they will handle it exactly the same as vendor IDs with the exception of deferring the technical-merit decision to us in the middle of the process.


      On Jan 6, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Kerry Lynn <kerlyn2001@...> wrote:

      Hi all,

      I've clipped the bottom (135-2012an related stuff) off this thread to focus on the
      Frame Type allocation procedure and added some comments inline.  Probably
      still best to read up from the bottom...

      On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:59 AM, H. Michael Newman <hmn2@...> wrote:

      I would not want to delegate a technical task to ASHRAE of this sort. I would favor such requests being handled by, for example, the MS/TP-WG within the committee.


      I thought there might need to be coordination between ASHRAE and SSPC 135 on
      this (since technically ASHRAE reserves/allocates the Frame Types).  I imagined
      that the ASHRAE manager of standards would receive any requests and then forward
      them to the chair of SSPC 135 for expert review.  Once a decision has been reached,
      the chair of SSPC 135 would send the response back to ASHRAE for ratification and
      then to the manager of standards who would respond to the original requester.

      I would be delighted to put up a page on BACnet.org with the issued frametype extensions and we could direct applicants to the appropriate contact from the website (and get ASHRAE staff to direct people to the website as well).


      That would be great.  Perhaps the entry for a given Frame Type could also include
      a link to the associated protocol specification (RFC or equivalent).



      From: bacnet-mstpwg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-mstpwg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Fisher
      Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 10:41 AM
      To: bacnet-mstpwg@yahoogroups.com

      Subject: RE: [bacnet-mstpwg] obtaining an MS/TP Frame Type


      Expanding on Cliff’s theme:

      >4 - Is there a way for the ASHRAE Manager of Standards to determine if a

      >request is from a valid SDO (or at least claims to be from a valid SDO)?


      IMHO, a vital service that is currently NOT provided by ASHRAE is what

      Cornell maintains on its www.bacnet.org site, namely a valid list of

      vendorIDs and contacts. If we decide to make this ASHRAE-managed

      frametype extension, then there should be a similar centralized location

      (perhaps bacnet.org) where such information is also available.


      David Fisher

      PolarSoft® Inc.

      914 South Aiken Ave

      Pittsburgh PA 15232-2212


      ! www.polarsoft.biz


      412-683-5228 fax


      From: bacnet-mstpwg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-mstpwg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Clifford H Copass
      Sent: Fri! day, January 03, 2014 10:09 AM
      To: bacnet-mstpwg@yahoogroups..com; Kerry Lynn

      Subject: RE: [bacnet-mstpwg] obtaining an MS/TP Frame Type



      Some suggestions and questions:


      1 - Suggest also referencing addendum an (as in "in Clause 9 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 135-2012 with addendum an").  Otherwise the number ranges won't make much sense.

      Yes, good point. 

      2 - Do we know if the ASHRAE Manager of Standards is willing to take this on and/or if they would want someone in the BACnet committee to delegate requests to?  Also, is there a planned mechanism for publishing this information?  (T.B.D. is an acceptable answer as long as we don't forget.)

      Allocating protocol values is such a common problem in the IETF that a
      dedicated organization, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA),
      was set up to coordinate this activity.  The guidelines for requesting values
      from IANA are discussed in RFC 5226, which reflects years of practical
      experience with this problem.  The main takeaway is a distinction between
      "large" namespaces (e.g. Vendor IDs) where the resource is not that scarce
      and you effectively just hand out the next available value, versus "small"
      namespaces which require "expert review" before an allocation is made.
      I see SSPC 135 acting in the "designated expert" role for the allocation
      of MS/TP Frame Types.

      I think we can discuss the external-facing details of the allocation request
      in parallel with figuring out the internal coordination that must occur between
      ASHRAE and SSPC 135.

      3 - Should we request a secondary contact or SDO generic contact information in case the original authorized agent is not available at some future date?

      That could be made optional.  Hopefully the process itself does not take an
      inordinate amount of time.  Any correspondence in the distant future could
      be made to the current head of the SDO (e.g. using the original agent's title).

      We probably should require the URL of the SDO's website.

      4 - Is there a way for the ASHRAE Manager of Standards to determine if a request is from a valid SDO (or at least claims to be from a valid SDO)?

      After re-reading RFC 5226, one thing it recommends in the case of expert
      review is that the intended use specification should already have undergone
      some peer review.  It seems to me that the allocation request should be
      accompanied by a draft specification for the protocol that will use the Frame
      Type as well as a statement that it has undergone peer review by the SDO.
      I expect the specification would be in draft form since typically it cannot be
      approved by an SDO until all the protocol values are assigned.

      To cite a practical example, the Internet Draft (pre-RFC) specification of
      IPv6 over MS/TP has undergone significant review and has been adopted
      as a working group document (IOW, it has passed the initial hurdle toward
      becoming a "proposed standard" RFC).

      It seems to me that if the request comes from the head of a well-known SDO
      and is accompanied by a peer-approved draft specification, then we can be
      reasonably certain the request is legitimate.

      Should we require an agreement that the Frame Type is only to be used for
      the assigned purpose?

      Regards, -K-


      Cliff Copass



      From: bacnet-mstpwg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-mstpwg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kerry Lynn
      Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 4:02 PM
      To: Clifford H Copass
      Cc: bacnet-mstpwg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [bacnet-mstpwg] Revised Addenda 2012an. Third time is the charm?


      Hi Everyone,

      In addition to a fifth version of the 135-2012an PPR2 draft that covered Cliff's
      comments, I also uploaded a draft process for obtaining an MS/TP Frame Type
      from ASHRAE.  I based this on the form that is used to apply for a Vendor ID.


      Can you take a look at it and send any comments to this list?

      Thanks, -K-


    • Show all 5 messages in this topic