Project

General

Profile

Bug #459

No mechanism in SCL to indicate if the SCT can define/delete/edit RCBs/ExtRefs

Added by Herbert Falk almost 2 years ago. Updated 8 months ago.

Status:
Closed
Priority:
High
Assignee:
-
Category:
Already captured with TISSUE
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
ID:
16
Source:
IOP_2013
TF Unique ID:
16 # IOP_2013
WG10 Proposal:

refer to 1402 TISSUE (related to the 1257)

Estimated Completion:
Discuss in Upcoming Meeting:
No
To discuss in WG10:
Short Proposal:

61850 allows ExtRefs to be defined in any logical node. No clarifications needed, but UCA needs to improve conformance testing to fail devices violating this. Possibly clarification in part 6 §9.3.13 to be considered.For RCBs on the other hand it makes sense to have them (like for GoCB ) only on LN0. however this is not a restriction in the standard. This is task for vendor guideline from UCA, not WG10.

Standard(s):

IEC 61850-6

Needs More Information:

Description

There was an ICT/IED combination that only allowed RCBs and ExtRefs to be defined in a certain LD/LN. It did not allow any RCBs/ExtRefs to be defined for any other LD/LN combination. The SCT attempted to define RCBs/ExtRefs in other logical nodes through and SCD. The import of the SCD was refused.
61850 allows ExtRefs/RCBs to be defined in any logical node. However, there is no mechanism in SCL for an ICT to declare where it is legal to do so or what the semantics required for ExtRef are.

#1

Updated by Herbert Falk almost 2 years ago

  • Priority changed from Normal to High
#2

Updated by Carlos Rodriguez del Castillo almost 2 years ago

  • Subject changed from There was an ICT/IED combination that only allowed RCBs and ExtRefs to be defined in a certain LD/LN. It did not allow any RCBs/ to No mechanism in SCL to indicate if the SCT can define/delete/edit RCBs/ExtRefs
  • Category changed from Standard extension required to Already captured with TISSUE
  • Short Proposal changed from 61850 allows ExtRefs to be defined in any logical node. No clarifications needed, but UCA needs to improve conformance testing to fail devices violating this. Possibly clarification in part 6 §9.3.13 to be considered. For RCBs on the other hand it makes sense to have them (like for GoCB ) only on LN0. however this is not a restriction in the standard. This is task for vendor guideline from UCA, not WG10. to 61850 allows ExtRefs to be defined in any logical node. No clarifications needed, but UCA needs to improve conformance testing to fail devices violating this. Possibly clarification in part 6 §9.3.13 to be considered.For RCBs on the other hand it makes sense to have them (like for GoCB ) only on LN0. however this is not a restriction in the standard. This is task for vendor guideline from UCA, not WG10.
  • Standard(s) set to IEC 61850-6
  • Discuss in Upcoming Meeting set to No

Checking done

#3

Updated by Thierry Dufaure over 1 year ago

Later Binding and ServiceCapability.noIctBinding was introduced in SCL Ed2.1 to deal with ICTs that do not support definition of ExtRef in any LN.
If an ICT does not support definition of RCB in any LN, then it has to preconfigure the RCB where it wants them to be. According to Part 6 Ed2.1: if no value of ReportSettings is fix, the SCT can delete and add ReportControls up to the defined max value.

#4

Updated by Carlos Rodriguez del Castillo 8 months ago

  • Status changed from New to Closed

Also available in: Atom PDF