219   operTm in ACT

Created: 26 Sep 2005

Status: In Force (green)

Part: Part 7-3 (2003)


Page: 24

Clause: 7.3.5

Paragraph: Table 17

Category: Issue may impact interoperability of implementations of Edition 1


operTm is currently defined as CF attribute of the CDC ACT. The intention of the use of this attribute is in the context with using GOOSE services with the data OpOpn and OpCls of the LN CPOW. The LN XCBR is assumed to receive the GOOSE message and use operTm as the time to operate the circuit breaker.

There are two issues related to that assumption:
- as used above, operTm is not a CF attribute but it is a ST attribute instead
- the use of one attribute only may be not enough; we may need one attribute per phase or we may at least need to define, to which phase it refers.


Delete the CF attribute operTm (including the entry in clause 8)
Add three new, optional ST attributes: operTmPhsA, operTmPhsB, operTmPhsC

Discussion Created Status
no negative comment received on voting; set to green 17 Nov 05 In Force (green)
Editor Meeting agreed with proposal; set to final proposal 10 Oct 05 Ballot Period
Once again, I can so far not imagine a use case, where we need operTm as configuration attribute.

However, I can see cases where we need operTm (or operTmPhsA, ...) as Status attribute - as described in my comment, e.g. for point on wave switching.

Using operTm as CF attribute - the data is currently in a LN that is the publisher of a GOOSE message.: Who would configure it? and for what purpose? Please provide the use case.
02 Oct 05 Discussion (red)
I disagree with the proposal. It is not clear why a configuration parameter IS NOT NEEDED. At a minimum, the proposal should be to have a CF/SP and MX/ST (e.g. the actual operational time).

I believe that we still need the CF. I believe a single CF applicable to all phases is OK but don't have a strong opninion. Please note that in clause 7.6.2 (APC) operTm is an SP. We probably should have consistency.

I believe that the functional requirement/definition of an MX/ST of operTmPhsA, B, C needs to be clarified in the problem statement in order to determin if these are measured or status and what the implied difference is. I would lean towards MX if it is a measurement of when the operation/phase started or is it intended for duration? Some functional requirements would be nice.

The other issue is why can't an FCD be used to convey this information as opposed to individual FCDAs?

26 Sep 05 Discussion (red)
Status changed to red 26 Sep 05 Discussion (red)


Privacy | Contact | Disclaimer

Tissue DB v.