Project

General

Profile

Issues #6208

sSvsN2 in TP1.2 does not check the situation where the DUT checks ConfRev

Added by Hua Qin almost 2 years ago. Updated over 1 year ago.

Status:
Rejected
Priority:
Normal
Due date:
03/07/2023 (about 21 months late)
Discuss in Upcoming Meeting:
No
Clause Reference:
61850 Standard:
Triggering Tissue:
Final Decision:
Initial Test Document:
Updated Test Document:
Test Case ID:
Closed Reason:
--Not Set---
Triggering Tissue 2:
Triggering Tissue 3:

Description

Step 2 and 3 works for the DUT which does not check ConfRev.
For DUT checks ConfRev, it discards the SV after checking ConfRev version and may not really check the elements in the dataset.

It is suggested to add extra two steps:
4. SIMULATOR publishes SV stream with same ConfRev, with an extra dataset element parir at the end
5. SIMULATOR publishes SV stream with same ConfRev, with missing last dataset element pair


Files

Solution to redmine 6208 sSvsN2.docx Solution to redmine 6208 sSvsN2.docx 21.4 KB Richard Schimmel, 02/21/2023 09:51 AM
#1

Updated by Hua Qin almost 2 years ago

  • File deleted (clipboard-202301120919-psgld.png)
#2

Updated by Thierry Dufaure almost 2 years ago

Adding those 2 steps means: test the subscriber when wrong configuration are provided. Based on 7-2 (and 90-28), adding or removing a DataSet member lead to the increment of ConfRev

4. SIMULATOR publishes SV stream with same ConfRev, with an extra dataset element pair at the end
5. SIMULATOR publishes SV stream with same ConfRev, with missing last dataset element pair

#3

Updated by IEC 61850 TPWG almost 2 years ago

  • Due date set to 02/21/2023
  • Status changed from New to In Progress
  • Assignee set to Richard Schimmel

Accepted

#4

Updated by IEC 61850 TPWG almost 2 years ago

  • Due date changed from 02/21/2023 to 03/07/2023
#5

Updated by Richard Schimmel almost 2 years ago

PIXIT entry Svs4 states the behavior on mismatching ConfRev.
PIXIT entry Svs5 states the behavior on mismatching dataset elements.
Mismatching ConfRev is already tested in sSvsN1. So we should keep the ConfRev at step 2 and 3 as proposed before

TBD – what is the added value of Step 1?? Consider to remove. It assumes the DUT supports PTP.

#6

Updated by IEC 61850 TPWG over 1 year ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Rejected

Discard this request as it would be testing non-conformant behavior.

Also available in: Atom PDF