UCAIug Issue Tracking System: Issueshttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/https://redmine.ucaiug.org/favicon.ico?15861924492024-03-18T10:37:35ZUCAIug Issue Tracking System
Redmine IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Feature #6739 (New): How to deal with 'Beh' and 'Health' of ...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/67392024-03-18T10:37:35ZMichael Haecker
<p>For site testing, users shall use the test mode to isolate devices/functions to prevent from flooding control centres with test data.</p>
<p>Whereas data marked "test" can be filtered out, changes of 'Beh' cannot be filtered out. When, for example, changing the active parameter set, the user will create data towards the control centre for LN instances which are activated/inactivated through this change.<br />[Part 7-4 Annex A: "Regardless of the status of LN.Beh, the quality test attribute of Mod, Beh and Health shall be q.test=false."]</p>
<p>In an automation system where a gateway is used to interface the control centre, this gateway could implement a feature to block the information flow of a device in test. Where a direct link via IEC 61850 is used, such blocking is not possible.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Improvement #6738 (New): Amending TGSN LN class with setting...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/67382024-03-18T10:14:44ZMichael Haecker
<p>The LN classes TCTR and TVTR inherit from 'InstrumentTransformerLN' some settings which can be used for adapting the output signal.</p>
<p>TGSN LN class is missing the settings for scaling, linerarization, wideing of a focussed range.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Bug #6737 (New): Amending TGSN LN class with signal characte...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/67372024-03-18T09:57:10ZMichael Haecker
<p>The model of a generic sensor does not provide characteristics about the analogue signal type which is used to receive the sensor value.</p>
<p>TC57/WG18 are proposing to amend the model with a setting to state the analogue signal type.</p> Client - Issues #6728 (New): cSg13 refers to PIXIT entry Sg5/Sg6 but not clarified in the expecte...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/67282024-03-05T12:34:33ZRichard Schimmel
<p>The expected result requires the client to read the SGCB.resvTms but that is optional according to PIXIT Sg6! The PIXIT entry Sg6 has no Edition indication. So when PIXIT says No the client will fail the expected result.</p>
<p>Propose: update the expected result to allow PIXIT Sg6=No behavior. Update the PIXIT Entry Sg6 edition.</p> Client - Issues #6727 (New): cDsN1bc, cFtN2 have no non-Ed2 specific error codehttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/67272024-03-05T12:26:20ZRichard Schimmel
<p>Same as for cSrvN10 also cDsN1b/cDsN1c (MMS GetNameList) and cFtN2 (MMS fileDirectory) have no Ed1 specific error code.<br />I propose to deprecate these test cases just like cSrvN10.</p> IEC 61850 TPWG - Bug #6622 (Rejected): Test case Ttf1 (mustUnderstand) for the ICT conformance te...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/66222023-12-06T16:41:38ZKaren Wyszczelski
<p>The test should be modified to test three scenarios.</p>
<p>An element has a mustUnderstand in the communication section of the IED being configured, but the IED being configured does not support it.<br /> The ICT should reject the configuration of the IED and provide an error message.</p>
<p>An element has a mustUnderstand outside the scope of the IED being configured.<br /> The ICT should import the file.</p>
<p>An element has a mustUnderstand element that is in another device but the SCD is configured for use in the IED being configured.<br /> The ICT should reject the configuration of the IED and provide an error message.</p>
<p>Currently mustUnderstand is only used for R-GOOSE and R-SV.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Bug #6596 (Resolved): Simulation Mode with Centralized Prote...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/65962023-11-12T10:40:07ZDustin Tessier dtessier@tescoautomation.com
<p>During a recent vPAC Alliance meeting the topic of LPHD.Sim was discussed and how it would not support a centralized protection scheme, which forces the entire physical device (centralized computing platform) to be placed into simulation mode. Ideally the simulation modes could be applied to LDs (similar to test mode via LLN0), however this would create backwards compatibility issues. The other option is to not use simulation mode, and use the LN's InRef's tstEna/setTstRef data objects to dynamically subscribe to the test set.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Improvement #6370 (Resolved): SBOns to be deprecated in future.https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/63702023-06-12T11:50:52ZVladan Cvejic
<p>It was decided on the WG10 plenary meeting in Regensburg (DE) to deprecate SBOns i.e. firstly we shall recommend not to be used and later to deprecate it (Edition 3).<br />This issue is entered into UFTF in order to copy it later to Future Work.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Bug #6263 (Resolved): GOOSE MinTime / Max Time - Probable di...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/62632023-02-14T11:24:58ZAbhilash Appukuttanabhilash.appukuttan1@ge.com
<p>In Part 6, the MinTime and MaxTime is expressed as 'Decimal'</p>
<p><xs:complexType name="tGSE"><br /><xs:complexContent><br /><xs:extension base="tControlBlock"><br /><xs:sequence><br /><xs:element name="MinTime" type="tDurationInMilliSec" minOccurs="0"/><br /><xs:element name="MaxTime" type="tDurationInMilliSec" minOccurs="0"/><br /></xs:sequence><br /></xs:extension><br /></xs:complexContent><br /></xs:complexType><br />---<br /><xs:complexType name="tDurationInMilliSec"><br /><xs:simpleContent><br /><xs:extension base="xs:decimal"><br /><xs:attribute name="unit" type="tSIUnitEnum" use="optional" fixed="s"/><br /><xs:attribute name="multiplier" type="tUnitMultiplierEnum" use="optional" fixed="m"/><br /></xs:extension><br /></xs:simpleContent><br /></xs:complexType></p>
<p>However, in 8-1, the MinTime and MaxTime is an Unsigned32 / INT32U</p>
<p>MinTime Unsigned32 r o INT32U – As specified in the SCD<br />file for the GoCB, See 1<br />MaxTime Unsigned32 r o INT32U – As specified in the SCD<br />file for the GoCB. See 1</p>
<p>What shall the ICT process the values as? Input as Decimal and then pass it as Integer to the application?</p>
<p>Or does it makes sense to change the -6 to have these values as Integer?</p>
<p>If you look at Table 45 in -6, it does point to that way.</p>
<p>INT8, INT16, INT24, INT32,<br />INT64<br />INT8U, INT16U, INT32U</p>
<p>integer</p>
<p>An integer number, no decimal fraction (99999)</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Bug #6256 (Resolved): IEC 61850-7-4 list of abbreviationshttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/62562023-02-09T19:27:57ZMichael Haecker
<p>Clause 4.2 / Table 1 of Part 7-4 lists the abbreviations used in data object names.</p>
<p>In this list entries exist which refer to (parts of) former DO names. When removing DO / changing DO names of former versions, model managers of other Parts do not inform the Part 7-4 editor to delete the entries from the list.</p>
<p>The standard (and the web access datamodel) expose abbreviations which are not used any more.</p>
<p>Example: string "Ia" : 16 entries</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Feature #6246 (Resolved): ExtRef cannot specify a Poll inten...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/62462023-02-02T13:01:21ZVladan Cvejic
<p>Via the ExtRef element an SCT can specify expected inputs to an IED and may state a serviceType indicating a service used to receive the data. In most cases, i.e. GOOSE, Report and SV, the serviceType refers to a specific service defined in 7-2.</p>
<p>But -6 is less precise about serviceType=Poll, "… the client shall / will poll the input data by means of read requests."</p>
<p>Which form the Poll read request takes i.e., GetDataValues or GetDataSetValues cannot be specified using the schema and is left to the respective ICTs to sort out.</p>
<p>But a customer may prefer to use GetDataSetValues to minimize network bandwidth utilization or to minimize burden on the IED since the comparable GetDataValues requests are quite large. While a customer may specify an ExtRef and add a DataSet to the IED for this purpose, the DataSet would appear to be unused and could be removed accidentally.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Bug #6226 (Resolved): In the downgrading rules from ed 2.1 t...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/62262023-01-17T09:05:39ZAurelie Dehouck
<p>61850-6 ed2.1 mention in I.4.2.4 "New CDC":</p>
<p>"The CDC ORS has been added to the list of the allowed CDCs. DOType whose CDC=ORS shall be excluded from the export to an 2007B environment. This includes also DO instances using this type."</p>
<p>But other CDCs were also added (cf tPredefinedCDCEnum, or 7-3): CST, VSD and TCS<br />Why shouldn't they be excluded also ?</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Improvement #6207 (Resolved): How to manage update of an IED...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/62072023-01-11T13:34:56ZCamille Blochcamille.bloch@se.com
<p>As per ObjectReference definition, the reference is including the IEDName or the ldName this mean two cases are possible:</p>
<p>LGOS.GoCBRef.setSrcRef <Val>’ldName’/LLN0.GoCB1</Val><br />LGOS.GoCBRef.setSrcRef <Val>’IED Name + LD inst’/LLN0.GoCB1</Val></p>
<p>When an SCT is updating IEDName or ldName, it has to maintain the ObjectReferences. But what if valImport is false?</p>
<p>First point, in which case do we have valImport set to false for ObjectReference?</p>
<p>Then, when it is set to false, it is the responsibility of the ICT to maintain the value, but how to identify the updates done in the SCD?</p>
<p>For this topic we need to consider the different cases involving ObjectReference (CDC ORG):<br />1/ LLN0.GrRef: identification of a parent LD, this is the responsibility of the IED/ICT to maintain it, surely valImport=false. Then, as it is a local reference, we may enforce usage of @ in SCL instead of IEDName to simplify the management? <br />2/ InRef: identification of an input of an LN. Usually related to ExtRef by IntAddr, but there is no strict rule for this assumption. What if valImport is false and not ExtRef is associated? the ICT/IED has no clue on the new IEDName/ldName. Do we forbid to have valImport=false for InRef without ExtRef? Then, we need to identify clearly also the rule to link InRef and ExtRef by intAddr. And when InRef valInport is true, how an SCT know the allowed Objects to be referenced? and what about <br />3/ BlkRef: identification of a blocking signal. Nothing is specifically designed in SCL to know which signal in SCD is used. ExtRef could be used also, but it is not mandated. We have the same issue as per InRef.<br />4/ GoCBRef/SvCBRef: identification a monitored GCB or SVCB. The referenced CB may be identified thanks to the ExtRef related to the supervised CB. But what if multiple CB names has been updated simultaneously? an algorithm may be able to recognize the correct supervised CB. But maybe not so easy.</p>
<p>Then we have also other cases like for statistics LN the ClcSrc refering to LN used for statitics calculation and InSyn to identify the external synchronization signal, and other cases.</p>
<p>Then, we also have to consider not only the setSrcRef/setSrcCB of the ORG which could be related to the ExtRef, but also setTstRef/setTstCB which are not configured by any other mean in SCL.</p>
<p>Considering all these cases, when valImport is false, the SCT is not able to maintain the ObjectReference regading update of any part of the reference even if the object is the same (IEDName, ldName, lnPrefix, CB name...) and the ICT may probably have an issue to recognize the Object in SCD after the update.</p>
<p>Do we allow valImport=false only for local references? with the @ which do not needs to be updated? and even in this case, what if an lnPrefix is updated for example?</p>
<p>And if we decide to force all valImport to true for ObjectReference, how to ensure that SCT is not providing wrong data? we do not have pDO/pDA as per ExtRef.</p>
<p>During a discussion in a small group of experts we do not fully agree on a solution. So we need to discuss the problem more widely.</p> IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Improvement #5968 (Resolved): Change the diagrams in 7-500 t...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/59682022-09-16T13:38:25ZKeith Gray
<p>During the UCAIug triage meeting on 2022/09/16, a request was made to not use yellow lines in the diagrams because they are difficult to see. I am adding an item here to keep track of it.</p> General Testing Issues - Improvement #5921 (Resolved): Start using Vendor and Lab Submission Info...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/59212022-08-08T22:15:09ZHerbert Falk
<p>A subgroup had worked on a Vendor and Lab information submission form. We need to review and start using the process.</p>
<p>This will be in preparation for ITCA audits.</p>