Your criticism of addendums to standard is warranted, except the standards we use are continuously upgraded. This week's news? HTTP/1.1. How about IPv6? HTML5?

Your criticism of addendums to standard is warranted, except the standards we use are continuously upgraded. This week's news? HTTP/1.1. How about IPv6? HTML5? CSS3? Every time something new needs to be added, we must ask ourselves if it's worth it to start from scratch. About security, your opinion is that the private network should be considered insecure for HVAC control. IMO someone changing the setpoint of your air conditioned is the least of your worries if someone gets in your network. But you might be right, perhaps there's a need for yet another level of security. If that's the case, then we can evaluate if we can use what's in the standard, or if we need something brand new. These flaws (believe it or not)(...) You can keep your snarky comments, thank you very much. A year ago I was the only one on the BACnet mailing list saying BACnet should get its shit together or a giant like Google or Apple would come and eat its lunch. I know these are flaws. I also know there are ways to patch them. The question is whether it's worth starting from scratch. You know how many Apple's engineers asked info on the BACnet mailing list? Oh right, NONE. This smells a lot like young software developers looking at a complex software thinking they can do better... only to realize later that heck, some of these complexities were there for a reason. Some other times, it might be 'cleaner' to start anew, but the shear effort to shift an entire industry ins't worth it. Make no mistake, it's an entire industry, and a huge one! -- Again, were I Apple, I'd - Refuse to use any BACnet device that didn't provide a minimum level of security, because it could lead to bad PR. - Refuse to use any BACnet device that didn't operate on top of TCP at a minimum (because using TCP allows me to use (say) TLS). - Refuse to use any BACnet device that wouldn't support both IPv4 and IPv6. - Have to work with all the BACnet stakeholders. - Have to make all of my software backwards compatible. - Have to find some way of agreeing with all the stakeholders to market their Apple-compatible devices in such a way that Apple customers won't have to spend days poring over spec sheets to find out which BACnet devices are compatible with the Apple software. -- In other words, make your own walled garden where you can do what you want. That's pretty much the history of Apple, unfortunately. Sad days for those yearning for more open protocols. BACnet is just a protocol, and a complex, bloated one - if it's flawed such that to fix it we must change it drastically, it's probably easier to just replace it. MAYBE, but I've yet to see Apple (or anyone else) opening a discussion with the HVAC industry asking what's going on, what are the needs, etc. What I do see, is a company on the brink of disregarding a standard in 3 of the biggest standard organizations, just 'because'.