Bug #439
How to add utility process name to DOs
0%
19-01-23: Camille to distribute proposal for review (if accepted, will be implemented in next Revision/Ed)
To use nsdoc files as holders of DO,DA standard descriptions (7-4, 7-3)If DO descriptions are to be changed, that should be done in SCL.
IEC 61850-6
Description
Currently SCL has poor support for handling gateway/RTU-funktions where signal names are translated for remote communication. The specified sigal has a utility process name independent of used protcol. E.g. "start of distance protection". This needs to be associated with its IEC 61850 implementation (xxPDIS1.Str.general, xxPDIS2.Str.general etc.). The 80-1 part describes how 104 addresses can be added to SCL but also other utility fields are important to be able to include in SCL for specification and documentation purposes. Desired solution by Vattenfall is to have vendors use DA description to add utility process name.
Files
Related issues
Updated by Carlos Rodriguez del Castillo almost 4 years ago
- Subject changed from Currently SCL has poor support for handling gateway/RTU-funktions where signal names are translated for remote communication. Th to How to add utility process name to DOs
- Status changed from New to In Progress
- Short Proposal changed from To use nsdoc files as holders of DO,DA standard descriptions (7-4, 7-3) If DO descriptions are to be changed, that should be done in SCL. to To use nsdoc files as holders of DO,DA standard descriptions (7-4, 7-3)If DO descriptions are to be changed, that should be done in SCL.
- Standard(s) set to IEC 61850-6
- Discuss in Upcoming Meeting set to No
Checking done.
Updated by Vladan Cvejic about 1 year ago
- Discuss in Upcoming Meeting changed from No to Yes
- To discuss in WG10 set to No
- Needs More Information set to Yes
Updated by Camille Bloch about 1 year ago
Original proposal done in 2017 attached
Updated by Vladan Cvejic about 1 year ago
- Copied to WG10 Future Work #6579: How to add utility process name to DOs added
Updated by Vladan Cvejic about 1 year ago
- Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
Transferred to Future Work (shall be discussed in WG10 next meeting). It is resolved from UFTF perspective.