Complaint about a definition of LF from NB to LF — view NB
- The MSB finds that a metering time period definition of the LF is not available to it or appears implausible to it, or
- the NB or MSB determines that a switching time definition of the LF is not available to it or appears implausible to it or
- the NB or MSB determines that a power curve definition of the LF is not available to it or appears implausible to it. It submits a complaint about this to the LF. The latter checks the incoming complaint and, if the complaint is unfounded, notifies that the definition is valid.
Process flow from the perspective of the NB
Process steps
Complaint about a definition of the LF
NB LFCheck identifiers
- 17122 — Complaint about a definition · AS4
Flow
Load data for processing
LESEN_ANFRAGE_BASISLESEN_AUFTRAG_BASISLESEN_LEISTUNGSKURVENDEFINITION_BASISLESEN_REKLAMATION_BASISLESEN_SCHALTZEITDEFINITION_BASISLESEN_ZAEHLZEITDEFINITION_BASIS
Message to LF · AS4
Write endpoint
- Transaction updated — Update process data
POST /updateProcessData
Updates the existing transaction in the backend once the message has been created.
- Transaction updated — Update process data
Rejection of the complaint
NB LFZ33Check identifiers
- 19123 — Rejection of complaint about a definition · AS4
Flow
Message from LF · AS4
Response per decision tree
19123→ E_0550 · LF · Check complaint
APERAK checks
19123→Z33
Write endpoint
- Transaction updated — Update process data
POST /updateProcessData
Updates the existing transaction in the backend with the data of the incoming message.
- Transaction updated — Update process data
Load data for processing
LESEN_ANFRAGE_BASISLESEN_AUFTRAG_BASISLESEN_LEISTUNGSKURVENDEFINITION_BASISLESEN_REKLAMATION_BASISLESEN_SCHALTZEITDEFINITION_BASISLESEN_ZAEHLZEITDEFINITION_BASIS
Decision trees of this process
| EBD | Name |
|---|---|
| E_0550 | Check complaint |
Process information
Wording of the consolidated version, profile ch. 1.2.8.1, p. 31.
Preconditions
- The MSB is missing a metering time period definition of the LF or
- a metering time period definition of the LF appears implausible to the MSB or
- the NB or MSB is missing a switching time definition of the LF or
- a switching time definition of the LF appears implausible to the NB or MSB, or
- the NB or MSB is missing a power curve definition of the LF or
- a power curve definition of the LF appears implausible to the NB or MSB.
Results
- If a definition subject to complaint has to be corrected, the use case “Transmission of a definition of LF by LF” must be carried out for the definition subject to complaint to all authorized parties to which the definition to be corrected was transmitted.
- If a definition subject to complaint was not transmitted, the use case “Transmission of a definition of LF by LF” must be carried out for the definition subject to complaint to all authorized parties to which the definition was not transmitted.
First message
The party involved on this page is itself the sender of: „Complaint about a definition of the LF“ to LF (step 1).
Objective
- The MSB has complained about an implausible or missing metering time period definition of the LF, or
- the NB or MSB has submitted a complaint about an implausible or missing switching time definition of the LF or
- the NB or MSB has submitted a complaint about an implausible or missing power curve definition of the LF.
Other views of the process
The same process through the eyes of the other parties involved: the same steps, each read from their point of view.
- View LF — LF
Notes on this page
The steps are the possible messages of this process, not a sequence — the source lists neither conditions nor alternatives. The small box on the step names the own view on the left: with ← it receives, with → it sends. Collapsed steps run between other market partners.
The source does not yet name the event that triggers these steps.
Applies to: 1
These read accesses are not listed in the API catalogue of this format version; the step therefore shows only their command, without address and without button.
The connector table lists no write call for these steps. Derived from the process flow: the own role was already involved in this process, so the transaction already exists.
Applies to: 2