WG meeting: Martin will send Email to Elena P., Christian Hock, Peter Kamp, Wolfang Mahnke

• 1. Question Why is Byte-Array used to OctetStringT and not ByteString? -> If we switch to ByteString the common rule use all scalar.

To assure Writing complete only use AccessLevelEx Bit 10 - WriteFullArrayOnly.
Reading a Range not protectable by switching to ByteString - see Part 4: "The NumericRange can also be used to specify substrings for ByteString and String values."

Martin wrote Email to desired earlier participants.

Answers from Ch. Hock and W. Mahnke summarized:

• ValueRank is not correct here.
• if I remember correctly, the underlying reason was the "at that time often not existing" support of OPC UA-ByteString in the "devices/systems/...".

Answer from Elena P.:
I'm browsing through the notes from back then, and funny thing is that when I see the results from the IODD group (as an example, the presentation in the appendix, slide 9, as of 4 October 2017) it says exactly as you want it now -> OctetStringT should be mapped to ByteString:
Picture: 001.jpg
Even after that, in November 2017, in a presentation stands the following:
Picture: 002.jpg
Why we decided differently in the end or whether we really decided differently I could not determine from the notes, the info is missing to me.

But what I see is that in all draft versions of the specification, the following text occurs. And it contains the error:
Picture: 003.jpg
And when I compare this mapping with the information above, it seems to me that it is a "typo"/error.

So much from my side, unfortunately I can not find more...

001.jpg (37,920 bytes)   

001.jpg (37,920 bytes)   

002.jpg (28,841 bytes)   

002.jpg (28,841 bytes)   

003.jpg (64,277 bytes)   

003.jpg (64,277 bytes)   

Found in screenshot (pictur 004.jpg) from CS the reason for this mapping.

004.jpg (44,058 bytes)   

004.jpg (44,058 bytes)   

WG meeting: Tobias will extend the sentence d) from screenhot in comment 2023-01-13 10:05.

Done in " OPC 30120 - UA Companion Specification for IO-Link 1.01.00 Draft V00.02_TG.docx"