View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0006257 | 10000-005: Information Model | Spec | public | 2020-11-13 19:21 | 2020-12-07 19:35 |
| Reporter | Jim Luth | Assigned To | Jeff Harding | ||
| Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | have not tried |
| Status | closed | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Summary | 0006257: 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/) 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. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Commit Version | |||||
| Fix Due Date | |||||
|
|
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:
For version 1.05 Make it mandatory to obtain and set the ServiceLevel based on the recommended ranges in Part 4. |
|
|
Made ServiceLevel setting required in 1.05. |
|
|
Agreed to changes in Virtual F2F. V1.05 and all Errata. |
| 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 |