bacnet-it-wg : Messages : 30-59 of 182

Logistics

The BACnet IT-WG meeting in Germantown will be on Tuesday May 11, 2010, from 8 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. at Montgomery College, Room GB105. The GB building is located on Goldenrod Lane. The IP-WG will meet immediately after the IT-WG meeting.

Directions to the Montgomery College campus in Germantown: http://www.montgomerycollege.edu/maps/gvic.html

Parking Instructions: Park in the GB parking lot in any white line (student) parking space, obtain a Temporary Parking Permit at the SSPC 135 meeting and properly display the permit in your vehicle.

Meeting Discussion Topic

I believe that BAS-IT convergence will require that BAS products become more IT friendly. But what does that mean in concrete terms? How might that affect the future of BACnet? Please read http://bacnetit.cimetrics.com/bin/view/BACnetIT/ITFriendliness for background, and come prepared to state your opinions about how building automation products could become better citizens on corporate networks.

Also, if you haven’t already read Andy McMillan’s article on this topic (“Good Fences Make Good Neighbors”), I recommend that you do so prior to the meeting: http://www.automatedbuildings.com/news/jun09/columns/090531120404mcmillan.htm

From this discussion, we will attempt to capture some use cases and/or requirements that will help guide the next phase of our work.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or ideas.

- Jim Butler

BACnet IT-WG Leader

mailto:jimbutler@...

#31

From: "winston BASS" <winston_bass@...>
Date: Sat May 8, 2010 5:55 pm
Subject: Article from one with IT experience which supports not putting too much on IT but keep it separate but work with IT

winston4open

http://www.automatedbuildings.com/news/aug08/articles/optimal/080728031606optimal.htm

Jim,

The referenced article from “Automated Buildings” I thinks adds to the discussion about IT involvement.

Article from one with IT experience which supports not putting too much on IT but keep it separate and work with IT.

Communications technology is advancing so rapidly, we must find ways to advance the Building Network Technologies (BNT) used by BACnet just to keep pace with what is available.

I know this sounds like heresy just to mention, but maybe BACnet/IP (or an enhanced version) will be the standard. With this approach we would not be reinventing the wheel each step of the way.

My 2 cents worth (I’m not sure if the saying has changed of late?)

Winston Hetherington BAS Specialist. LM_ASHRAE

BASS Consulting Services

907 - 1300 Pinecrest Rd.

Ottawa, Ontario. K2C3M5

Phone 613 829-2039 or Cell 613 296-2188

winston_bass@...

http://www.bass-consulting-services.ca

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

#32

From: "James F. Butler" <jimbutler@...>
Date: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:01 pm
Subject: BACnet IT-WG meeting in Albuquerque: June 27, 2010

jimbutlerma

Germantown Meeting Recap

During our meeting in Germantown in May, we discussed the concept of IT friendliness and what that might mean for BACnet. The background document is posted here: http://bacnetit.cimetrics.com/bin/view/BACnetIT/ITFriendliness. Also, if you haven’t already read Andy McMillan’s article on BAS-IT convergence (“Good Fences Make Good Neighbors”), I recommend that you do so: http://www.automatedbuildings.com/news/jun09/columns/090531120404mcmillan.htm

Albuquerque Meeting

The BACnet IT-WG meeting in Albuquerque (NM) will be on Sunday June 27, 2010, from 8 a.m. until 9:00 a.m. at the Albuquerque Convention Center in the Santa Ana room. The BACnet IP-WG will meet immediately after the IT-WG meeting. These meetings are part of ASHRAE’s Summer Meeting.

A small group of us are putting the finishing touches on a set of draft requirements for BACnet IT, which will be posted on the BACnet IT-WG TWiki on Monday. I’ll send a separate message about this on Monday. This will be “required reading” prior to the Albuquerque meeting.

We have a one-hour meeting slot in Albuquerque. The meeting will begin with a presentation on BACnet IT requirements, and a discussion will follow.

Future Meetings

The next official BACnet committee meeting is expected to be held in late October or early November in Atlanta. However, I am thinking about the possibility of holding a one- or two-day “BACnet IT Summit” some time before the Atlanta meeting, possibly in September.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or ideas.

- Jim Butler

BACnet IT-WG Leader

mailto:jimbutler@...

#33

From: Charles Frankston <cbf@...>
Date: Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:53 pm
Subject: BACnet IT proposed requirements summary

cbf9427

I’ve put a page up on the BACnet IT TWiki: http://bacnetit.cimetrics.com/bin/view/BACnetIT/RequirementsSummary, with some “strawman” BACnet IT requirements that I’d like to use as a starting point for the conversation in Albuquerque. I would welcome discussion of these points via this mailing list in the next few days before the meeting.

#34

From: "Carl Neilson" <cneilson@...>
Date: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:22 pm
Subject: RE: BACnet IT proposed requirements summary

carlneilson

1) A minor point:
	 Need to find a service by "type" (Who-Has)
should be
	 Need to find an object by "name" or by "identifier" (Who-Has)


2) I am not sure I agree with:
	 It must be possible to aggregate formerly distinct BACnet
systems into a single BACnet internetwork and avoid name collisions
without requiring a potential scan and rename of all devices.

This does not hold for any most networks that are deployed as private
self-contained networks. When they are made no longer private, or
multiples are joined, there may be the need to reworked naming and
numbering. E.g. if two private IPv4 networks of PC are connected and
they both contain a bank of servers named FileServer, PrintServer, and
SuperPrivateServer, then renaming of the servers and reworking of
application links to them will be required.

I think that in order to guarantee that arbitrary disparate BACnet
internetworks can be joined, one would need a guaranteed globally unique
identifer assigned to, at the very least, each independent BACnet
internetwork (assuming then that all entities within the network are
scoped by that ID, and that the joining of the networks would not overly
mix the entities losing the original network areas). Or a globally
unique ID would need to be defined per device.

Given that this is not something that it prevalent in the IT world
today, is it really a fundamental requirement of BACnet/IT (I would not
argue the merits of the feature, just whether or not it is fundamentally
required for this task).


3) Can sufficient security not be provided for many products in many
installations by the infrastructure?

For very small equipment-only installations, not tied into IT networks,
little or no security is probably sufficient. Physical security
(conduit, locked boxes) would be sufficient in almost all situations
that require some level of security.

For large installations that run on IT networks, the use of physical
security (locked boxes, conduit, intrusion detection systems), managed
hubs with MAC address matching (only allowed MACs can pariticipate),
VPNs (segregation of traffic with a restricted number of connection
points to the larger world) and firewalls (gatekeeping at the points of
connection) provide more than adequate security for most BAS
installations.

For those installations that are in between, there is a need for either
secure BAS products (but may be just the infrastructure products that
have it), or better trained BAS technicians that can setup IT equipment
to provide secure networks.

As for permissions, is that not normally applied by the UI and/or the
firewall/gateway into the system. Is there really an expectation that a
thermostat will either contain a database of users or will query a
security server to check if the requestor has permission to change the
setpoint?

While secure product will be required (or at least should be required)
by many installations, I do not believe that it would be, or should be,
required by all installations. Given that security is about
understanding and managing risk (effort versus probable loss), the tools
that exist for an IT network should be sufficient for many
installations. This leaves it open for cost recovery on secure products
by charging more for them, but only in those cases where it is truly
required.

Carl


________________________________

From: bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Charles Frankston
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 7:53 AM
To: 'bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: [bacnet-it-wg] BACnet IT proposed requirements summary




I've put a page up on the BACnet IT TWiki:
http://bacnetit.cimetrics.com/bin/view/BACnetIT/RequirementsSummary
<http://bacnetit.cimetrics.com/bin/view/BACnetIT/RequirementsSummary> ,
with some "strawman" BACnet IT requirements that I'd like to use as a
starting point for the conversation in Albuquerque.  I would welcome
discussion of these points via this mailing list in the next few days
before the meeting.

#35

From: Charles Frankston <cbf@...>
Date: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:25 pm
Subject: RE: BACnet IT proposed requirements summary

cbf9427

Carl – Thanks for the reply. Let me see if I can elaborate on some of the points:

2) I am not sure I agree with:

It must be possible to aggregate formerly distinct BACnet
systems into a single BACnet internetwork and avoid name collisions
without requiring a potential scan and rename of all devices.

This does not hold for any most networks that are deployed as private
self-contained networks. When they are made no longer private, or
multiples are joined, there may be the need to reworked naming and
numbering. E.g. if two private IPv4 networks of PC are connected and
they both contain a bank of servers named FileServer, PrintServer, and
SuperPrivateServer, then renaming of the servers and reworking of
application links to them will be required.

Yes, when two private IP networks are joined, IP addresses and host names may need to be changed. But the point is that ht IT community has efficient means and tools for dealing with this. In most IT environments, the vast bulk of IP addresses are assigned via DHCP. So a site-wide change can often be done by simply changing the DHCP parameters. The major point here being that most IT protocols don’t persist IP addresses (beyond the lifetime of a particular connection/task), so such a change doesn’t cause major disruption.

Similarly for hostnames, domain namespaces are hierarchical, and many organizations make use of that. So for example, suppose a xyz company of Vancouver buys abc company of Boston. Suppose xyz operates their internal network as xyz.net. XYZ & ABC can merge their networks without renaming all of their hosts by saying the local domain of the new Boston office is boston.xyz.net, and the local domain of the Vancouver office is vancouver.xyz.net (if it wasn’t already). This is the “internet” way of handling the merger scenario.

The main point of adopting what has become the world-wide IT standard – i.e. using IP as *the* network layer, is that the IT/Internet world has already created workable, sometimes even elegant, solutions to many of these issues and BACnet IT should use these solutions wherever possible.

3) Can sufficient security not be provided for many products in many
installations by the infrastructure?

For very small equipment-only installations, not tied into IT networks,
little or no security is probably sufficient. Physical security
(conduit, locked boxes) would be sufficient in almost all situations
that require some level of security.

The main point is requiring that all equipment which claims to be BACnet IT compliant be prepared to support a BACnet IT specified security story. Whether installations could, should, or would turn it on is another matter. Security that is an optional, possibly extra-cost option, is unlikely to succeed.

But in fact, I believe even smaller installations would, or *should*, run with security enabled. We had some of this discussion at Germantown. I think increasingly it is becoming less and less acceptable for even small networks to not have security. We discussed the 7/11 example, where it’s quite likely the HVAC network would be aggregated and remotely monitored on the same data link used for the cash registers. It’s just not worth fooling around with letting any part of that be penetrated.

The key, or perhaps the challenge, is creating security procedures that are simple and commonplace. Again, the reason to look to the IT world for solutions here is that they’ve already faced this – particularly in wireless scenarios. But even on wired networks, I think you’ll find that fewer and fewer packets are traversing your corporate network in the clear anymore. Most enterprises have recognized that it’s just too easy to plug something into an active jack and start causing mischief.. In a BAS it’s potentially even easier when every thermostat, or even every light switch has a physical connection to the BAS.

As for permissions, is that not normally applied by the UI and/or the
firewall/gateway into the system. Is there really an expectation that a
thermostat will either contain a database of users or will query a
security server to check if the requestor has permission to change the
setpoint?

I think the answer simply is “yes”. I can think of enterprise scenarios where very fine-grained access control is useful and desirable. Even today, thermostats of often locked-down – i.e. the occupants can’t fool with them in large commercial office environments. So the HVAC automatically shuts off at 6PM, but you’re working late. Well, today that employee might have an after-hours phone number for facilities management and can maybe call and get someone who might know how to tweak the controls workstation. What if they could just do this from their PC instead? The corporate enterprise management system could check that they were indeed and employee with an office on that floor, who was permitted to do that override.. and this would likely be tied in to the card key that gave him/her physical access, etc. (Hint: no, the database will almost certainly not be contained within the thermostat.)

So, OK, the above is a complex scenario, and it would likely take a while to work that all out. But we should be designing BACnet IT to be the protocol for the next 20 years..

#36

From: Charles Frankston <cbf@...>
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2010 4:28 pm
Subject: Presentation from Albequerque BACnet IT meeting

cbf9427

Has been posted to the BACnet IT Wiki: http://bacnetit.cimetrics.com/bin/view/BACnetIT/StrawMen

#37

From: jerald.p.martocci@...
Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 2:45 pm
Subject: BACnet IT Presentation in Albuquerque

martoochman

Hi Jim,

Once again, thanks to you and your team for presenting the BACnet/IT strawman in Albuquerque. It's a great start .

There are a few other comments that I had at the meeting that I couldn't quite squeeze in the allotted time. I thought I would try the BACnet IT Wiki. I joined it, but can't quite find a collaboration area, so here I am back in Yahoo Groups. If these topics are better suited to the Wiki, please let me know and I will try harder to figure it out and add them into the wiki.

Here's the list of items to consider. Some were touched on in the meeting, but I'm not sure completely fleshed out:

1. Who installs FMS systems?

I believe we concurred in the that it's electricians. These guys are great with a wire cutter, but not too well schooled on IP. They need to get in the building install at least the room sensors and room controllers and test for proper operation before they can leave the job. If we want to move IP down to the sensor level, we have to make it completely transparent to these guys. The devices must have zero configuration albeit setting an address on the device; not a 128 bit IPv6 address, but maybe an 8 or 16 bit DIP switch. They don't know or want to know about DNS, DHCP, mDNS or any other protocols.

2. How is FMS installed vis a vis' an IP system?

An FMS is typically installed from the outside-in (at least for new construction). First the edge devices (temp sensors) are installed, then the room controllers, area controllers, supervisory controllers are installed and tested. This is antithetical to the installation practice for IT systems, where the server farms are installed and made operational (e.g. DNS, DHCP, AAA); next the routers, switches, cat5/6 and other distribution architecture is setup and finally the hosts (PCs) are added onto the infrastructure.

This is a real chicken-egg thing since the FMS typically needs to be completely operational (at least the Fire, Lighting and Ventilation systems) before an occupancy permit is issued which allows the IT wonks to occupy the building.

3. Do we assume IP networks end-to-end?

I believe Charles answered this in the presentation as 'no' stating that gateways could be placed between the IP segments and the non-IP segments. This is not a suitable answer, The main reason for going to IP is to have a ubiquitous protocol from end-to-end. Our customers (at least JCI customer's) are not too enamored with gateways. They see these as black boxes they have to pay for that do nothing for them. If BACnet is going IP, we need to be sure we provide gateway-less IP end-to-end.

If a given vendor wants to still gate that's its prerogative. The market will decide if the gateway is acceptable. However, our architecture shouldn't anticipate the use or need for gateways.

I think for BACnet to go IP end to end, we need to develop IP for EIA-485 (aka RS485). This wired media predominates in our market for sensor and controller networks. The cost is at least an order of magnitude cheaper to install than CAT5 and the achievable data rates are adequate for FMS control and sensing applications. With 6LoWPAN/ROLL in the offing, we will soon have a wireless IP sensor network, we should work to develop a complementary low cost wired IP network. (NOTE: I would like to poll the addressees of this email on their thoughts on this topic).

3. So where's UDP?

The omission of UDP traffic needs to be reconsidered. FMS systems need to be fully connected since the applications need to access objects and receive alarms from random devices on the network. Setting up and maintaining TCP sessions to all n-1 devices would be killer to these devices, especially sleepy sensors.

Also, 6LoWPAN does not support TCP header compression, while it does support UDP header compression. So if we go with TCP exclusively, our packet sizes will be significantly higher.

4. Numeric Addresses vs Named Devices

In the meeting Charles suggested that named devices is the IT way and that BACnet should subscribe to this approach. While I agree that named devices is the IT approach, I think we need to also consider numeric addresses. Getting back to the installation practices noted in item #1 above. Our (JCI) field folks definitely want to set addresses by DIP switches. Every time we have tried to take DIP switches off our devices, our field people scoff. The application engineer simply wants to annotate the device address on the construction schematics and hand it over to the electrician. It's easy and it works. Also 6 months later, when another tech is at the job, he/she can easily look at the device and know its address and connectivity onto the network. When a device is software configured, but has no user interface, this is not possible.

Jerry

#38

From: "Holmberg, David" <david.holmberg@...>
Date: Fri Jul 9, 2010 2:39 pm
Subject: Some notes on Smart Grid, FERC and BACnet

david_nist

All,

Just an FYI note--Cyber security is a big deal to FERC, and BACnet will be looked at carefully.

First, Section 1305(d) STANDARDS FOR INTEROPERABILITY IN FEDERAL JURISDICTION. “At any time after the Institute’s [NIST] work has led to sufficient consensus in the Commission’s [FERC] judgment, the Commission shall institute a rulemaking proceeding to adopt such standards and protocols as may be necessary to insure smart-grid functionality and interoperability in interstate transmission of electric power, and regional and wholesale electricity markets.

Right now, BACnet is one of the standards for FERC evaluation since it has been generally agreed that BACnet is important to Smart Grid. I don’t think FERC will do much with it, except as it impacts the transmission domain that they oversee. But BACnet ties the facility to the building interface and OASIS Energy Interoperation, which is very much in FERC domain with market and DR interactions. And this all ties back then to “how secure is BACnet”, since FERC also has said (Smart Grid Policy Statement, Paragraph 41): “Accordingly, consistent with our [cyber security] mandates under EISA, …. Specifically, there must be a demonstration that a proposed smart grid standard: (1) directly incorporates [cyber security] protection provisions, or (2) incorporates [cyber security] protection provisions from other smart grid standards or electric Reliability Standards ...[that] provide [cyber security] protection for the electric power system for the proposed standard.”

The SGIP Cyber Security WG (http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/CyberSecurityCTG) is looking at all these standards, their updated NISTIR will be out very soon with discussion of Cyber-security strategy, architecture, etc. They don’t yet have a security analysis of standards. I haven’t had a chance to review the early drafts (that don’t seem to be posted publically yet).

David Holmberg

NIST Building and Fire Research Lab

301-975-6450

#39

From: "Old, Bob" <bob.old@...>
Date: Fri Jul 9, 2010 5:46 pm
Subject: FW: [SGAC-CYBER] Fwd: updated draft NISTIR 7628 posted

bobold2

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/NISTIR7628v1July2010/draft-nistir-7628_vol1_07-08-2010.pdf

Here’s the cover memo for the cyber security NISTIR. Looks like comments are due earlier than I thought.

B.O. July 9, 2010

Robert Old

Siemens Industry, Inc.

Building Technologies

1000 Deerfield Pkwy.

Buffalo Grove, IL 60089-4513

Tel.: +1 (847) 941-5623

Skype: bobold2

bob.old@...

www.siemens.com

From: SGIP SGAC Cyber Security Model Team [mailto:SGIP-SGAC-CYBER@...] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 8:39 PM
To: SGIP-SGAC-CYBER@...
Subject: [SGAC-CYBER] Fwd: updated draft NISTIR 7628 posted

FYI

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Brewer, Tanya" <tanya.brewer@...>

Date: July 8, 2010 5:57:23 PM PDT

To: Multiple recipients of list <csctg@...>

Subject: updated draft NISTIR 7628 posted

Reply-To: csctg@...

Hello All,

The NISTIR is near completion, and is now in three volumes. They are available at:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/NISTIR7628v1July2010/draft-nistir-7628_vol2_07-08-10.pdf

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/NISTIR7628v1July2010/draft-nistir-7628_vol3_07-08-10.pdf

At this time we are only accepting very minor changes (e.g., bad hot-links, a missing word, numbering troubles, etc.). We will accept these minor changes until 08:00 Eastern Monday. After that the document is to remain static for internal publication reviews. Please direct any suggested changes to Annabelle and me.

Thank you for all of the great help in the last week in catching plenty of small (and a few big) things! It's been incredibly helpful.

-Tanya

http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF

#40

From: "James F. Butler" <jimbutler@...>
Date: Fri Jul 9, 2010 7:13 pm
Subject: RE: BACnet IT Presentation in Albuquerque

jimbutlerma

Hi Jerry,

Thanks for your comments.

The BACnet IT TWiki is not currently the ideal place for active discussions; we don’t have a forums feature enabled. I think that the TWiki is well suited to disseminating factual information, documents and references, and you are welcome to create new “topics” (pages) for that purpose.

I will talk to Charles (after he gets back from vacation) about how to facilitate discussion about the issues you and others brought up following our Albuquerque presentation. If we decide to use e-mail, then I expect that we will start several single-topic e-mail threads.

- Jim Butler

From: Jerald.P.Martocci@... [mailto:Jerald.P.Martocci@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 10:46 AM
To: James F. Butler
Cc: 'bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com'; Ted.Humpal@...; John.Ruiz@...; Yusuf.Bashir@...
Subject: BACnet IT Presentation in Albuquerque

#41

From: Dave Robin <yahoo@...>
Date: Fri Jul 9, 2010 10:36 pm
Subject: Re: Some notes on Smart Grid, FERC and BACnet

dave_robin_alc

The network security addendum should be posted soon and that will help show that BACnet isn't just talking about adding security in the future. Soon all statements can use present tense: BACnet *has* real security (AES/SHA).

--

Dave Robin

On Jul 9, 2010, at 10:39 AM, "Holmberg, David" <david.holmberg@...> wrote:

All,

Just an FYI note--Cyber security is a big deal to FERC, and BACnet will be looked at carefully.

First, Section 1305(d) STANDARDS FOR INTEROPERABILITY IN FEDERAL JURISDICTION. “At any time after the Institute’s [NIST] work has led to sufficient consensus in the Commission’s [FERC] judgment, the Commission shall institute a rulemaking proceeding to adopt such standards and protocols as may be necessary to insure smart-grid functionality and interoperability in interstate transmission of electric power, and regional and wholesale electricity markets.

Right now, BACnet is one of the standards for FERC evaluation since it has been generally agreed that BACnet is important to Smart Grid. I don’t think FERC will do much with it, except as it impacts the transmission domain that they oversee. But BACnet ties the facility to the building interface and OASIS Energy Interoperation, which is very much in FERC domain with market and DR interactions. And this all ties back then to “how secure is BACnet”, since FERC also has said (Smart Grid Policy Statement, Paragraph 41): “Accordingly, consistent with our [cyber security] mandates under EISA, …. Specifically, there must be a demonstration that a proposed smart grid standard: (1) directly incorporates [cyber security] protection provisions, or (2) incorporates [cyber security] protection provisions from other smart grid standards or electric Reliability Standards ...[that] provide [cyber security] protection for the electric power system for the proposed standard.”

The SGIP Cyber Security WG (http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/CyberSecurityCTG) is looking at all these standards, their updated NISTIR will be out very soon with discussion of Cyber-security strategy, architecture, etc. They don’t yet have a security analysis of standards. I haven’t had a chance to review the early drafts (that don’t seem to be posted publically yet).

David Holmberg

NIST Building and Fire Research Lab

301-975-6450

#42

From: "James F. Butler" <jimbutler@...>
Date: Fri Aug 6, 2010 3:49 pm
Subject: Possible special interim meeting or teleconference

jimbutlerma

Dear BACnet-IT-WG and SSPC 135,

I am considering holding a special interim meeting of the BACnet IT-WG on September 9-10. The location would be Boston or San Jose. The meeting would focus on several key topics related to making BACnet become more IT friendly.

As an alternative to having a special interim meeting, I am considering scheduling a series of long (1.5-2.0 hour) teleconferences that would each focus on a single topic. Those teleconferences would be held in September and October, probably starting at 11:00 a.m. Eastern in order to allow people in Europe and Central Asia to participate.

If you have an interest in participating in either a meeting on September 9-10 or a sequence of teleconferences, please respond to me along the following lines:

- If there is an IT-WG meeting on September 9-10, I would like to attend. The location I prefer is (Boston or San Jose).

- If there are IT-WG teleconferences in September and October, I would like to participate. The best days of the week for me are …

Thanks,

- Jim Butler

#43

From: "Frank Schubert" <frank.schubert@...>
Date: Fri Aug 6, 2010 4:04 pm
Subject: AW: Possible special interim meeting or teleconference

frankschuber...

Jim,

I would love to attend a teleconference, but I will not be available on September 9+10.

Sorry, if the date is fixed, I cannot attend.

Frank

Mit freundlichen Gr��en aus Krefeld,
With best regards from Krefeld,

MBS GmbH - Vertrieb/Sales
ppa. Frank Schubert

E-Mail: Frank.Schubert@...
Tel: +49 / 2151 / 72 94-0
Fax: +49 / 2151 / 72 94-50
Mobil: +49 / 172 / 38 12 366

Visit us in the world wide web:
Besuchen Sie uns im Internet:
http://www.mbs-software.de

MBS GmbH
R�merstra�e 15
D-47809 Krefeld
Gesch�ftsf�hrer: Martin Brust-Thei�, Gerhard Memmen-Kr�ger
Registergericht Krefeld HRB 3337 Ust.-ID:DE 120 148 529

Von: bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com] Im Auftrag von James F. Butler
Gesendet: Freitag, 6. August 2010 17:50
An: 'bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com'
Cc: 'BACnet - Standing Standard Project Committee 135'
Betreff: [bacnet-it-wg] Possible special interim meeting or teleconference

Dear BACnet-IT-WG and SSPC 135,

If you have an interest in participating in either a meeting on September 9-10 or a sequence of teleconferences, please respond to me along the following lines:

- If there is an IT-WG meeting on September 9-10, I would like to attend. The location I prefer is (Boston or San Jose).

- If there are IT-WG teleconferences in September and October, I would like to participate. The best days of the week for me are …

Thanks,

- Jim Butler

#44

From: jerald.p.martocci@...
Date: Fri Aug 6, 2010 4:06 pm
Subject: Re: Possible special interim meeting or teleconference

martoochman

Hi JIm,

I would prefer a dedicated face-to-face meeting in Boston. San Jose is ok, but it's so hard getting back from the West coast.

I'm on so many calls already each week, I am not sure how productive I would be. If we have them though, I would prefer Tuesday and/or Wednesday.

Jerry

From:	"James F. Butler" <jimbutler@...>
To:	"'bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com'" <bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com>
Cc:	'BACnet - Standing Standard Project Committee 135' <sspc-135-l@...>
Date:	08/06/2010 10:49 AM
Subject:	[bacnet-it-wg] Possible special interim meeting or teleconference

Dear BACnet-IT-WG and SSPC 135,

If you have an interest in participating in either a meeting on September 9-10 or a sequence of teleconferences, please respond to me along the following lines:

- If there is an IT-WG meeting on September 9-10, I would like to attend. The location I prefer is (Boston or San Jose).

- If there are IT-WG teleconferences in September and October, I would like to participate. The best days of the week for me are …

Thanks,

- Jim Butler

#45

From: ahmed said <asa_mma2007@...>
Date: Fri Aug 6, 2010 4:11 pm
Subject: Re: Possible special interim meeting or teleconference

asa_mma2007

- If there are IT-WG teleconferences in September and October, I would like to participate. The best days of the week for me are all the week I can be free of every thing to attend this day.

From: James F. Butler <jimbutler@...>
To: "bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com" <bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: BACnet - Standing Standard Project Committee 135 <sspc-135-l@...>
Sent: Fri, August 6, 2010 6:49:38 PM
Subject: [bacnet-it-wg] Possible special interim meeting or teleconference

Dear BACnet-IT-WG and SSPC 135,

I am considering holding a special interim meeting of the BACnet IT-WG on September 9-10. The location would be Boston or San Jose . The meeting would focus on several key topics related to making BACnet become more IT friendly.

If you have an interest in participating in either a meeting on September 9-10 or a sequence of teleconferences, please respond to me along the following lines:

- If there is an IT-WG meeting on September 9-10, I would like to attend. The location I prefer is ( Boston or San Jose ).

- If there are IT-WG teleconferences in September and October, I would like to participate. The best days of the week for me are …

Thanks,

- Jim Butler

#46

From: "winston BASS" <winston_bass@...>
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2010 12:40 am
Subject: RE: Possible special interim meeting or teleconference

winstonhethe...

http://www.bass-consulting-services.ca

Jim,

I would be available for teleconferences, my first choice re days of week would be Tuesday and or Thursday, but I am also flexible.

Winston Hetherington BAS Specialist. LM_ASHRAE

BASS Consulting Services

907 - 1300 Pinecrest Rd.

Ottawa, Ontario. K2C3M5

Phone 613 829-2039 or Cell 613 296-2188

winston_bass@...

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

From: bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James F. Butler
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 11:50 AM
To: 'bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com'
Cc: 'BACnet - Standing Standard Project Committee 135'
Subject: [bacnet-it-wg] Possible special interim meeting or teleconference

Dear BACnet-IT-WG and SSPC 135,

If you have an interest in participating in either a meeting on September 9-10 or a sequence of teleconferences, please respond to me along the following lines:

- If there is an IT-WG meeting on September 9-10, I would like to attend. The location I prefer is (Boston or San Jose).

- If there are IT-WG teleconferences in September and October, I would like to participate. The best days of the week for me are …

Thanks,

- Jim Butler

#47

From: Klaus Waechter <waechter_klaus@...>
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2010 8:31 am
Subject: Re: Possible special interim meeting or teleconference

waechter_klaus

Hi Jim

On September 9-10 the CEN TC 247 WG4 meeting in Vienna take place. As SSPC 135 Liaison I will participate.

Therefore I am not available for an interim meeting or telco.

Best

Klaus

From: James F. Butler <jimbutler@...>
To: "bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com" <bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: BACnet - Standing Standard Project Committee 135 <sspc-135-l@...>
Sent: Fri, August 6, 2010 5:49:38 PM
Subject: [bacnet-it-wg] Possible special interim meeting or teleconference

Dear BACnet-IT-WG and SSPC 135,

I am considering holding a special interim meeting of the BACnet IT-WG on September 9-10. The location would be Boston or San Jose . The meeting would focus on several key topics related to making BACnet become more IT friendly.

If you have an interest in participating in either a meeting on September 9-10 or a sequence of teleconferences, please respond to me along the following lines:

- If there is an IT-WG meeting on September 9-10, I would like to attend. The location I prefer is ( Boston or San Jose ).

- If there are IT-WG teleconferences in September and October, I would like to participate. The best days of the week for me are …

Thanks,

- Jim Butler

#48

From: Dave Robin <yahoo@...>
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2010 1:27 pm
Subject: Re: Possible special interim meeting or teleconference

dave_robin_alc

Jim,

I always prefer face to face, but ending a two-day on Friday is a little rough. Tuesday-Wednesday or Wednesday-Thursday works a lot better for flights and weekends. In either of those cases, either Boston or San Jose would be fine, with a personal preference for San Jose. Bit if it ends on a Friday I'll have to opt for conference calls because of many fall commitments for weekend activities. (and yes ending Friday at noon is better but air travel vagaries still put Saturday morning commitments in danger)

Thanks.

Dave

On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:49 AM, "James F. Butler" <jimbutler@...> wrote:

Dear BACnet-IT-WG and SSPC 135,

I am considering holding a special interim meeting of the BACnet IT-WG on September 9-10. The location would be Boston or San Jose. The meeting would focus on several key topics related to making BACnet become more IT friendly.

As an alternative to having a special interim meeting, I am considering scheduling a series of long (1.5-2.0 hour) teleconferences that would each focus on a single topic. Those teleconferences would be held in September and October, probably starting at 11:00 a.m. Eastern in order to allow people in Europe and Central Asia to participate.

If you have an interest in participating in either a meeting on September 9-10 or a sequence of teleconferences, please respond to me along the following lines:

- If there is an IT-WG meeting on September 9-10, I would like to attend. The location I prefer is (Boston or San Jose).

- If there are IT-WG teleconferences in September and October, I would like to participate. The best days of the week for me are …

Thanks,

- Jim Butler

#49

From: "Holmberg, David" <david.holmberg@...>
Date: Mon Aug 9, 2010 1:30 pm
Subject: NIST BACnet RFQ published: Smart Grid - BACnet Protocol to Enable Smart Grid Compatability , IT Security and IPv6 Implementation

david_nist

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=f25f7cc972698bfc4883c3d2037c224b&tab=core&_cview=0

BACnet Smart Grid WG members and others,

Some time ago I sent out an email indicating NIST might be seeking support to investigate extensions to the BACnet protocol to address Smart Grid interoperability. A solicitation for proposals, for small businesses, has finally been released, with details available at the following web address on FedBizOpps. Deadlines are fairly short, I’m sorry to say. You have until Aug. 16 to ask for clarifications, and until Aug. 27 to submit proposal quotes.

Thanks for your support,

David

David Holmberg

NIST Building and Fire Research Lab

301-975-6450

#50

From: Chandrashekhar Appanna <achandra@...>
Date: Mon Aug 9, 2010 1:31 pm
Subject: Re: Possible special interim meeting or teleconference

chandra.appanna

Hi Jim,

The dates are fine. San Jose would be my preference.

Since Suresh is on vacation (and without email), I am also including
his repsonse -

San Jose would be his preference and the dates work for him too.

For a teleconference, either of us can mostly make any date given
sufficient notice.

Regards,
Chandra.

On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 03:49:38PM +0000, James F. Butler wrote:
> Dear BACnet-IT-WG and SSPC 135,
>
> I am considering holding a special interim meeting of the BACnet IT-WG on
September 9-10.  The location would be Boston or San Jose.  The meeting would
focus on several key topics related to making BACnet become more IT friendly.
>
> As an alternative to having a special interim meeting, I am considering
scheduling a series of long (1.5-2.0 hour) teleconferences that would each focus
on a single topic.  Those teleconferences would be held in September and
October, probably starting at 11:00 a.m. Eastern in order to allow people in
Europe and Central Asia to participate.
>
> If you have an interest in participating in either a meeting on September 9-10
or a sequence of teleconferences, please respond to me along the following
lines:
>
> - If there is an IT-WG meeting on September 9-10, I would like to attend.  The
location I prefer is (Boston or San Jose).
> - If there are IT-WG teleconferences in September and October, I would like to
participate.  The best days of the week for me are ...
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Jim Butler

#51

From: <ThomasJBrennan@...>
Date: Mon Aug 9, 2010 6:35 pm
Subject: RE: Possible special interim meeting or teleconference

brennantj3

Jim:

I would prefer the teleconferences, to save on the travel cost and minimize impact on on-going work. (Though face-to-face meetings are better.)

- Tom

Dear BACnet-IT-WG and SSPC 135,

If you have an interest in participating in either a meeting on September 9-10 or a sequence of teleconferences, please respond to me along the following lines:

- If there is an IT-WG meeting on September 9-10, I would like to attend. The location I prefer is (Boston or San Jose).

- If there are IT-WG teleconferences in September and October, I would like to participate. The best days of the week for me are …

Thanks,

- Jim Butler

#52

From: "Old, Bob" <bob.old@...>
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:22 pm
Subject: RE: Possible special interim meeting or teleconference

bobold2

Howdy Jim,

I think a face-to-face meeting would be the best. I prefer Boston but San Jose is fine, too. I will attend in either location.

Best,

B.O. August 16, 2010

Robert Old

Siemens Industry, Inc.

Building Technologies

1000 Deerfield Pkwy.

Buffalo Grove, IL 60089-4513

Tel.: +1 (847) 941-5623

Skype: bobold2

bob.old@...

www.siemens.com

From: bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James F. Butler
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 10:50 AM
To: 'bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com'
Cc: 'BACnet - Standing Standard Project Committee 135'
Subject: [bacnet-it-wg] Possible special interim meeting or teleconference

Dear BACnet-IT-WG and SSPC 135,

If you have an interest in participating in either a meeting on September 9-10 or a sequence of teleconferences, please respond to me along the following lines:

- If there is an IT-WG meeting on September 9-10, I would like to attend. The location I prefer is (Boston or San Jose).

- If there are IT-WG teleconferences in September and October, I would like to participate. The best days of the week for me are …

Thanks,

- Jim Butler

#53

From: "James F. Butler" <jimbutler@...>
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:56 pm
Subject: RE: Possible special interim meeting or teleconference

jimbutlerma

Dear BACnet IT-WG and SSPC 135,

Based on the responses that I received from many people, I have decided that the IT-WG will hold a few teleconferences prior to next meeting of SSPC 135 (tentatively scheduled for October 25-29 in Atlanta). If we do not make good progress in the teleconferences, I will reconsider the idea of holding a special interim meeting of the IT-WG later in the fall.

The IT-WG teleconference schedule will be announced next week on the IT-WG e-mail list. If you are not on that e-mail list, please join at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/bacnet-it-wg/ (click on the "Join This Group!" button).

Thanks,

- Jim Butler

From: bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com [bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of James F. Butler [jimbutler@...]
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 11:49 AM
To: 'bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com'
Cc: 'BACnet - Standing Standard Project Committee 135'
Subject: [bacnet-it-wg] Possible special interim meeting or teleconference

Dear BACnet-IT-WG and SSPC 135,

If you have an interest in participating in either a meeting on September 9-10 or a sequence of teleconferences, please respond to me along the following lines:

- If there is an IT-WG meeting on September 9-10, I would like to attend. The location I prefer is (Boston or San Jose).

- If there are IT-WG teleconferences in September and October, I would like to participate. The best days of the week for me are �

Thanks,

- Jim Butler

#54

From: "James F. Butler" <jimbutler@...>
Date: Fri Aug 27, 2010 8:54 pm
Subject: IT-WG teleconference - save the date/time

jimbutlerma

Dear BACnet IT-WG members,

The first fall teleconference of the IT-WG will be held on Wednesday, September 8, 2010 starting at 11:30 a.m. Eastern (15:30 UTC). The teleconference will last approximately 90 minutes. Next week Charles Frankston or I will send information about the discussion topic and some suggested readings.

We will also have a face-to-face meeting some time during the week of October 25-29, 2010 in Atlanta as a part of the SSPC 135 meeting.

Regards,

- Jim Butler

#55

From: "James F. Butler" <jimbutler@...>
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2010 2:08 pm
Subject: RE: IT-WG teleconference - save the date/time

jimbutlerma

http://cisco.com/en/US/about/doing_business/conferencing/index.html

Dear IT-WG members,

Tomorrow's BACnet IT-WG teleconference will be a WebEx webinar. Slides for the webinar will be posted later today on the TWiki.

Here are the details:

When: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 9:00 PM-10:30 PM (GMT+05:30) Chennai, Kolkata, Mumbai, New Delhi. (11:30 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. US Eastern time)

Where: Web conference

Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Chandra Appanna invites you to an online meeting using WebEx.

Meeting Number: 204 612 534

Meeting Password: 1234

-------------------------------------------------------

To join this meeting (Now from the Apple iPhone (R) and other smartphones!)

-------------------------------------------------------

1. Go to https://cisco.webex.com/cisco/j.php?J=204612534&PW=NNmYwMGMxYzFi

2. Enter the meeting password: 1234

3. Click "Join Now".

4. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen.

----------------------------------------------------------------

ALERT:Toll-Free Dial Restrictions for (408) and (919) Area Codes

----------------------------------------------------------------

The affected toll free numbers are: (866) 432-9903 for the San Jose/Milpitas area and (866) 349-3520 for the RTP area.

Please dial the local access number for your area from the list below:

- San Jose/Milpitas (408) area: 525-6800

- RTP (919) area: 392-3330

-------------------------------------------------------

To join the teleconference only

-------------------------------------------------------

1. Dial into Cisco WebEx (view all Global Access Numbers at

2. Follow the prompts to enter the Meeting Number (listed above) or Access Code followed by the # sign.

San Jose, CA: +1.408.525.6800 RTP: +1.919.392.3330

US/Canada: +1.866.432.9903 United Kingdom: +44.20.8824.0117

India: +91.80.4350.1111 Germany: +49.619.6773.9002

Japan: +81.3.5763.9394 China: +86.10.8515.5666

http://www.webex.com

CCP:+14085256800x204612534#

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session to be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, discuss your concerns with the meeting host prior to the start of the recording or do not join the session. Please note that any such recordings may be subject to discovery in the event of litigation.

From: bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com [bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of James F. Butler [jimbutler@...]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 4:55 PM
To: 'bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: [bacnet-it-wg] IT-WG teleconference - save the date/time

Dear BACnet IT-WG members,

We will also have a face-to-face meeting some time during the week of October 25-29, 2010 in Atlanta as a part of the SSPC 135 meeting.

Regards,

- Jim Butler

#56

From: Charles Frankston <cbf@...>
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2010 3:49 am
Subject: RE: IT-WG teleconference - save the date/time

cbf9427

http://cisco.com/en/US/about/doing_business/conferencing/index.html

The slide deck for this teleconference has now been posted at http://bacnetit.cimetrics.com/pub/BACnetIT/Meetings/BACnet_IT_2010-09-08-teleconf-topics.ppt

This is an overview of many of the topics that we expect to discuss in the next several weeks.

From: bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James F. Butler
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 10:08
To: bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bacnet-it-wg] RE: IT-WG teleconference - save the date/time

Dear IT-WG members,

Tomorrow's BACnet IT-WG teleconference will be a WebEx webinar. Slides for the webinar will be posted later today on the TWiki.

Here are the details:

When: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 9:00 PM-10:30 PM (GMT+05:30) Chennai, Kolkata, Mumbai, New Delhi. (11:30 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. US Eastern time)

Where: Web conference

Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Chandra Appanna invites you to an online meeting using WebEx.

Meeting Number: 204 612 534

Meeting Password: 1234

-------------------------------------------------------

To join this meeting (Now from the Apple iPhone (R) and other smartphones!)

-------------------------------------------------------

1. Go to https://cisco.webex.com/cisco/j.php?J=204612534&PW=NNmYwMGMxYzFi

2. Enter the meeting password: 1234

3. Click "Join Now".

4. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen.

----------------------------------------------------------------

ALERT:Toll-Free Dial Restrictions for (408) and (919) Area Codes

----------------------------------------------------------------

The affected toll free numbers are: (866) 432-9903 for the San Jose/Milpitas area and (866) 349-3520 for the RTP area.

Please dial the local access number for your area from the list below:

- San Jose/Milpitas (408) area: 525-6800

- RTP (919) area: 392-3330

-------------------------------------------------------

To join the teleconference only

-------------------------------------------------------

1. Dial into Cisco WebEx (view all Global Access Numbers at

2. Follow the prompts to enter the Meeting Number (listed above) or Access Code followed by the # sign.

San Jose, CA: +1.408.525.6800 RTP: +1.919.392.3330

US/Canada: +1.866.432.9903 United Kingdom: +44.20.8824.0117

India: +91.80.4350.1111 Germany: +49.619.6773.9002

Japan: +81.3.5763.9394 China: +86.10.8515.5666

http://www.webex.com

CCP:+14085256800x204612534#

Dear BACnet IT-WG members,

We will also have a face-to-face meeting some time during the week of October 25-29, 2010 in Atlanta as a part of the SSPC 135 meeting.

Regards,

- Jim Butler

#57

From: "James F. Butler" <jimbutler@...>
Date: Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:24 pm
Subject: RE: IT-WG teleconference - save the date/time

jimbutlerma

Dear BACnet IT-WG members,

The IT-WG’s next teleconference will be held on Wednesday, September 22, 2010 starting at 11:30 a.m. Eastern (15:30 UTC). The teleconference will last approximately 90 minutes. Details will follow.

Regards,

- Jim Butler

#58

From: donald.a.gottschalk@...
Date: Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:26 pm
Subject: AUTO: Donald A Gottschalk/CORP/Johnson_Controls is out of the office. (returning 09/21/2010)

cgottsdo

I am out of the office until 09/21/2010.

Gone fishing, will respond when I return.


Note: This is an automated response to your message  "[bacnet-it-wg] RE:
IT-WG teleconference - save the date/time" sent on 9/16/2010 1:24:40 PM.

This is the only notification you will receive while this person is away.

#59

From: "Tom" <ThomasJBrennan@...>
Date: Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:11 pm
Subject: Promoting Device Hierarchy and Self-Description

brennantj3

I'd like to suggest that we underline the requirements (if accepted) that BACnet/IT support a device hierarchy (at a single IP address) and better self-description by BACnet devices and systems of devices.

These are implicitly present now in some of the leading-edge BACnet work:

BACnet/WS supports a hierarchy of devices (at one address)
You can drill down in BACnet/WS and learn/discover all the devices and all their data (doable with some effort now in BACnet/WS, better in BACnet/XML and DR-035-11 RESTful WS extensions)
A stated use-case in the introduction of BACnet/XML says "An export format for tools and workstations to export or publish their knowledge of the arrangement and configuration of a device or a complete system of devices and networks."

So I don't think I'm breaking new ground, but think that it would be helpful to call attention to these requirements, as they provide impetus for users to move from BACnet today to BACnet/IT ("news you can use"). Ideal claims in this area would be

"Cuts through the Gordian Knot of BBMD/Virtual Router/Multiport complexity/misunderstandings/issues with a simple IT-friendly solution"
"Reduces integrator configuration time (and errors) by automating the BACnet device configuration process"