Is Name Of Station value "port-000" a permitted value

[AlfredoAtSherpa]

Hello Test & Certification colleagues. As always, I am so grateful for your support.

I have this one question, and forgive my lack of understanding of the specification. I am testing a device that DOES NOT allow setting of Name Of Station value of "port-000" through DCP client such as Proneta or Profinet Commander. (By the way, it will also not allow setting of "port-001" or "port-100", etc.)

This device passes all the ART Test cases from the ART version 2.45, including all of the DCP test cases.

The above behaviour seems to conform to the protocol specification , Order No.: 2.722, clause 4.3.1.4.16.2 Encoding, which says:

Additional for NameOfStation / NameOfInterface:
The first label does not have the form “port-xyz” or “port-xyz-abcde” with a, b, c, d, e, x, y, z = 0...9, to avoid wrong similarity with the field AliasNameValue
(Note, the above implies that x=0, y=0 and z=0 is not allowed)

However, the Application Layer services specification (Order No.: 2.712) says in clause Device Properties Option, sub-clause Name Of Station as follows:
This attribute contains the name of the interface set by local means or by the Set service.
The values “port-xyz” or “port-xyz-rstuv” where x,y,z is in the range “0”-“9” from “001” up to “255” and r, s, t, u, v is in the range “0” -“9” from “00000” up to “65535” shall not be used.

The above value "001" is excluding of course the value "000". This would imply that "port-000" is a valid Name of Station. I see a contradiction between the application layer and the services specification.

Would be grateful for your expert advice. Which is the correct interpretation? Is "port-000" an allowed, or a forbidden Name Of Station?

[Raik.Zachmann]

Hello Test & Certification colleagues. As always, I am so grateful for your support.

I have this one question, and forgive my lack of understanding of the specification. I am testing a device that DOES NOT allow setting of Name Of Station value of "port-000" through DCP client such as Proneta or Profinet Commander. (By the way, it will also not allow setting of "port-001" or "port-100", etc.)

This device passes all the ART Test cases from the ART version 2.45, including all of the DCP test cases.

The above behaviour seems to conform to the protocol specification , Order No.: 2.722, clause 4.3.1.4.16.2 Encoding, which says:

Additional for NameOfStation / NameOfInterface:
The first label does not have the form “port-xyz” or “port-xyz-abcde” with a, b, c, d, e, x, y, z = 0...9, to avoid wrong similarity with the field AliasNameValue
(Note, the above implies that x=0, y=0 and z=0 is not allowed)

However, the Application Layer services specification (Order No.: 2.712) says in clause Device Properties Option, sub-clause Name Of Station as follows:
This attribute contains the name of the interface set by local means or by the Set service.
The values “port-xyz” or “port-xyz-rstuv” where x,y,z is in the range “0”-“9” from “001” up to “255” and r, s, t, u, v is in the range “0” -“9” from “00000” up to “65535” shall not be used.

The above value "001" is excluding of course the value "000". This would imply that "port-000" is a valid Name of Station. I see a contradiction between the application layer and the services specification.

Would be grateful for your expert advice. Which is the correct interpretation? Is "port-000" an allowed, or a forbidden Name Of Station?

Hello Alfredo,

you found an inconsistency between the Protocol and Service Specification. As the PROFINET Specifications are currently in PI review phase, I would kindly ask you to directly submit a change request.
Many thanks.

Best regards,
Raik

[AlfredoAtSherpa]

Hello Alfredo,

you found an inconsistency between the Protocol and Service Specification. As the PROFINET Specifications are currently in PI review phase, I would kindly ask you to directly submit a change request.
Many thanks.

Best regards,
Raik

Hello Raik. Thanks so much for your prompt reply. Very reassuring. Sure, I will submit the change request.
Let me be 100% sure so my request has the correct contents and I do not cause confusion and extra work to everybody.
I understand that the inconsistency is due to the fact that the Application Layer services specification (Order No.: 2.712), contradicts the protocol specification (Order No.: 2.722); concretely where the AL services spec, in clause clause Device Properties Option, sub-clause Name Of Station says:

CURRENT (INCORRECT CONTENTS):
The values “port-xyz” or “port-xyz-rstuv” where x,y,z is in the range “0”-“9” from “001” up to “255”

CONTENTS THAT NEEDS CORRECTION AS PER DISCUSSION ABOVE:
The values “port-xyz” or “port-xyz-rstuv” where x,y,z is in the range “0”-“9” from “000” up to “255”

Upon your confirmation, I will confirm the procedure to send the request.

Again, thanks very much.

Alfredo

[Raik.Zachmann]

Hello Alfredo,

you found an inconsistency between the Protocol and Service Specification. As the PROFINET Specifications are currently in PI review phase, I would kindly ask you to directly submit a change request.
Many thanks.

Best regards,
Raik

Hello Raik. Thanks so much for your prompt reply. Very reassuring. Sure, I will submit the change request.
Let me be 100% sure so my request has the correct contents and I do not cause confusion and extra work to everybody.
I understand that the inconsistency is due to the fact that the Application Layer services specification (Order No.: 2.712), contradicts the protocol specification (Order No.: 2.722); concretely where the AL services spec, in clause clause Device Properties Option, sub-clause Name Of Station says:

CURRENT (INCORRECT CONTENTS):
The values “port-xyz” or “port-xyz-rstuv” where x,y,z is in the range “0”-“9” from “001” up to “255”

CONTENTS THAT NEEDS CORRECTION AS PER DISCUSSION ABOVE:
The values “port-xyz” or “port-xyz-rstuv” where x,y,z is in the range “0”-“9” from “000” up to “255”

Upon your confirmation, I will confirm the procedure to send the request.

Again, thanks very much.

Alfredo

Hello Alfredo,

I would just address the inconsistency of both parts and ask for clarification which information is correct.

Best regards,
Raik