169   OID duplication to identify 61850 objects

Created: 12 Jun 2026

Status: Analysis Of Compatibility

Part: Part 9 (2023, Edition2)

Links:

Page: 87

Clause: 8.5.5.2.2

Paragraph: Table 4

Issue

The OID for "61850_UDP _Tunnel" and "61850_IP_ISO9506" is the same (1.0.62351.9.61850.8.1.4) but should be distinguishable

Proposal

Proposal to define new OID for 61850_IP_ISO9506. Please verify "1.0.62351.9.61850.8.1.5"

Discussion Created Status
Backward compatibility issues may occur, if 61850_UDP_Tunnel was used. If 61850_UDP_Tunnel and 61850_IP_ISO9506 was used, the ambiquity was already there and should have resulted in unexpected behavior. 22 Sep 26 Analysis Of Compatibility
Clarification of assigned OIDS done to avoid ambiguity in the specification as the OID was assigned twice 22 Sep 26 Verify Draft Implementation
As no further feedback has been received, the next step is Draft Implementation.

The attached document shows the corrected Table 4, with the following change:
61850_UDP_Tunnel using 1.0.62351.9.61850.8.1.3 (changed from 1.0.62351.9.61850.8.1.4) 		06 Aug 26 Drafting Implementation
Perfect, if there are no further comments, we can move forward to "Drafting Implementation".
I would leave the proposal open until July 31 and see if we get further hints and move then to "Drafting Implementation" 		13 Jul 26 Discussion (red)
Exactly. That is also what I would like to propose. 13 Jul 26 Discussion (red)
Yes, it would be good to have consecutive numbers. We may also change the first number to avoid duplication resulting in

61850_UDP_Tunnel using 1.0.62351.9.61850.8.1.3 (currently 1.0.62351.9.61850.8.1.4)
61850_IP_ISO9506 using 1.0.62351.9.61850.8.1.4

13 Jul 26 Discussion (red)
I don't see a 1.0.62351.9.61850.8.1.3 value anywhere in the document. Maybe we can use that value? 13 Jul 26 Accepted
To avoid ambiguities, the OID should be unique for the different values. 16 Jun 26 Accepted

 

Privacy | Contact | Disclaimer

Tissue DB v. 25.7.7.1