Project

General

Profile

Feature #5081

Clarifications on the local/remote concept 1/8

Added by Carlos Rodriguez del Castillo 11 months ago. Updated 6 months ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Category:
Standard clarification required
Start date:
09/20/2021
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
ID:
5
Source:
MH
TF Unique ID:
5 # MH
WG10 Proposal:
Estimated Completion:
Discuss in Upcoming Meeting:
No
To discuss in WG10:
No
Short Proposal:
Standard(s):

IEC 61850-7-1 Ed2.1/7-4 Ed2.1 Annex B/7-500


Description

Add a statement about the intention of the L/R concept. Specify whether the L/R concept is applicable for the control of switchgear exclusively, not for controls in general. Note the saying "if the LN class includes 'Loc' and 'LocSta' data, then this LN class falls under L/R". Applicable for {ANCR, ARIS, ATCC, AVCO, CCGR, CSWI, CSYN, FSPT, GAPC, GGIO, IHMI, ITCI, KFAN, KFIL, KPMP, KVLV, LLN0, RSYN, XCBR, XSWI, YEFN, YLTC, YPSH, ZRRC}
Within such an LN class, clarify/list the controllable objects which fall under the L/R concept, e.g. 'XCBR.Pos' - yes, 'XCBR.OpCntRs' - no


Proposal descriptions

WG 10 needs to decide which task force needs to take a look at all the parts and determine the best approach as to where the clarification(s) needs to be made.

H30 to provide more use cases from users.

Related to TISSUE #1728.

There are no sufficient information in Standard for user to specify L/R concept in their specifications.


Related issues

Related to IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Feature #5084: Clarifications on the local/remote concept 4/8ResolvedTom Berry09/20/2021

Actions
Related to IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Feature #5082: Clarifications on the local/remote concept 2/8ResolvedTom Berry09/20/202101/20/2022

Actions
Related to IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Feature #5083: Clarifications on the local/remote concept 3/8ResolvedTom Berry09/20/202103/20/2022

Actions
Related to IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Feature #5085: Clarifications on the local/remote concept 5/8ResolvedTom Berry09/20/202103/20/2022

Actions
Related to IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Feature #5086: Clarifications on the local/remote concept 6/8ResolvedTom Berry09/20/202101/20/2022

Actions
Related to IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Feature #5087: Clarifications on the local/remote concept 7/8ResolvedTom Berry09/20/2021

Actions
Related to IEC 61850 User Feedback Task Force - Feature #5088: Clarifications on the local/remote concept 8/8ResolvedTom Berry09/20/202101/20/2022

Actions
#1

Updated by Carlos Rodriguez del Castillo 9 months ago

From the point of view of the application perspective we need to know what users expect to manage L/R in each logical node? Does it apply to all controllable data objects?
Action item:
- Ask users what is the expected behaviour?
- Ask K.P.B. what was the original concept of L/R?

#2

Updated by Carlos Rodriguez del Castillo 7 months ago

  • Status changed from New to In Progress

Contact K.P.B. to ask him about the original concept of L/R.
We need to clarify which controllable objects are under L/R (Loc) concept of a LN class.

#3

Updated by Vladan Cvejic 7 months ago

  • Related to Feature #5084: Clarifications on the local/remote concept 4/8 added
#4

Updated by Vladan Cvejic 7 months ago

  • Related to Feature #5082: Clarifications on the local/remote concept 2/8 added
#5

Updated by Vladan Cvejic 7 months ago

  • Related to Feature #5083: Clarifications on the local/remote concept 3/8 added
#6

Updated by Vladan Cvejic 7 months ago

  • Related to Feature #5085: Clarifications on the local/remote concept 5/8 added
#7

Updated by Vladan Cvejic 7 months ago

  • Related to Feature #5086: Clarifications on the local/remote concept 6/8 added
#8

Updated by Vladan Cvejic 7 months ago

  • Related to Feature #5087: Clarifications on the local/remote concept 7/8 added
#9

Updated by Vladan Cvejic 7 months ago

  • Related to Feature #5088: Clarifications on the local/remote concept 8/8 added
#10

Updated by Vladan Cvejic 7 months ago

  • Proposal descriptions updated (diff)
  • To discuss in WG10 changed from No to Yes
  • Standard(s) changed from IEC 61850-7-1 Ed2.1 to IEC 61850-7-1 Ed2.1/7-4 Ed2.1 Annex B/7-500
#11

Updated by Vladan Cvejic 7 months ago

  • Proposal descriptions updated (diff)
#12

Updated by Carlos Rodriguez del Castillo 6 months ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
  • Discuss in Upcoming Meeting changed from Yes to No
  • To discuss in WG10 changed from Yes to No

The eighth local/remote issues will be addressed by 7-5/7-500 Task Force.

#13

Updated by Carlos Rodriguez del Castillo 6 months ago

  • Assignee set to Tom Berry

Also available in: Atom PDF