View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
000625710000-005: Information ModelSpecpublic2020-12-07 19:35
ReporterJim Luth Assigned ToJeff Harding  
PrioritynormalSeverityminorReproducibilityhave not tried
Status closedResolutionfixed 
Summary0006257: Clarify requirement for non-redundant Server to set ServiceLevel
Description

Dear Mr. Luth,

I'm writing you as contact person in charge of the Unified Architecture Working Group, from which I would need a clarification on OPC UA specifications.

I have a scenario with a single OPC UA Server not in redundant configuration, which is exposing ServiceLevel = 0.

In this scenario, the OPC UA Client is not able to establish a connection to the server because it detects ServiceLevel = 0 and assumes the server is in maintenance mode.

My understanding is that the client in this case is adhering to the correct behavior expected by the OPC UA Standard, as described here. The server, even when in standalone mode and not in redundant configuration, should always properly set the ServiceLevel according to the specification:

All Servers, regardless of Redundant Server Set membership, shall adhere to the sub-ranges defined in Table 109.

Is my interpretation correct, or should the Client check and take in account ServiceLevel information only when connecting to a redundant server set?

I hope you or someone in the Working Group can help me clarify this doubt.

Thank you very much in advance and best regards,

Benedetto Bozano

Siemens Digital Industries Software

DI SW MOM PPM MES

Additional Information

Part 5 (https://reference.opcfoundation.org/v104/Core/docs/Part5/6.3.1/)
Says the following which is not clear enough for non-redundant Servers:

ServiceLevel describes the ability of the Server to provide its data to the client. The value range is from 0 to 255, where 0 indicates the worst and 255 indicates the best. OPC 10000-4 defines required sub-ranges for different scenarios. The intent is to provide the clients an indication of availability among redundant Servers.

TagsNo tags attached.
Commit Version
Fix Due Date

Activities

Jim Luth

2020-11-17 21:06

administrator   ~0013268

Discussed in today's telecon and agreed to the following.

For versions 1.02, 1.03 and 1.04 create Errata for Part 5 to:

  1. Remove the sentence "The intent is to provide the clients an indication of availability among redundant Servers."

  2. Add the statement that all Servers must at least set the value to 255 if no ServiceLevel info can be obtained (but ideally set it to the most appropriate value).

For version 1.05 Make it mandatory to obtain and set the ServiceLevel based on the recommended ranges in Part 4.

Jeff Harding

2020-12-01 19:20

developer   ~0013344

Made ServiceLevel setting required in 1.05.
Added clarification requiring at less setting it to 255 in Errata 1.04.9, 1.03.8 and 1.02.5.

Jim Luth

2020-12-07 19:35

administrator   ~0013390

Agreed to changes in Virtual F2F. V1.05 and all Errata.

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
2020-11-13 19:21 Jim Luth New Issue
2020-11-13 19:26 Jim Luth Description Updated
2020-11-13 19:32 Jim Luth Additional Information Updated
2020-11-17 21:06 Jim Luth Note Added: 0013268
2020-11-17 21:07 Jim Luth Assigned To => Jeff Harding
2020-11-17 21:07 Jim Luth Status new => assigned
2020-12-01 19:20 Jeff Harding Status assigned => resolved
2020-12-01 19:20 Jeff Harding Resolution open => fixed
2020-12-01 19:20 Jeff Harding Fixed in Version => 1.05
2020-12-01 19:20 Jeff Harding Note Added: 0013344
2020-12-07 19:35 Jim Luth Status resolved => closed
2020-12-07 19:35 Jim Luth Note Added: 0013390