Minutes of Meeting
EECT #14 for the B3 next release
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #14 for the B3 next release
Lille, 6th, 7thth and 8th October 2015
1. Adoption of the agenda and approval of the minutes of the meeting on 08, 09/09/2015
The agenda is adopted with the following amendment: on request by UNISIG several items are
added in AOBs, see section 5.
The minutes of the EECT meeting # 13 held on 08&09/09/15 are agreed with modifications, see
revision marks in the file “Minutes_EECT_080915_v2revmarks.docx” distributed separately.
Regarding the rejected comments, see ERA replies in the Word comments still embedded in the
file “Minutes_EECT_080915_v2revmarks.docx”.
2. B3 next release – Triage
a) Review of the list of open actions and pending assessments of CRs
The following input was received prior to the meeting for the actions 11.02 allocated to EUG,
while no input was received from EUG for the action 11.01
EEIG448 Protection of
ETCS areas using Danger for SH Information v4.docx
Due to lack of time, the item is however not covered.
b) Assessment of new CR received
Item not covered, due to lack of time
c) Project Plan
EUG reminds that the process foresees the use of the CR database for the exchange of
information, the extensive use of e-mails shall be avoided and the correct assignment of CRs shall
be applied.
It is also agreed to confirm the need for a December meeting, however the dates are moved to
08&09/12/15.
1 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #14 for the B3 next release
3. Change Requests - Technical Resolution
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
The comments posted by U (02/10/15) are discussed.
Concerning their major comment, U considers that even if the section 6.x.1.1 would also include the case of an RBC
2.1 accepting a train 2.0 from a RBC 2.1, the fact that 6.x.3.1 is written as an exception can be read, from the
accepting RBC standpoint, as if the pre-announcement specified in 6.x3.1 could completely substitute the preannouncement in 5.2.1.
299
Version compatibility check
Even though ERA argues that in practice, the accepting RBC 2.1 must be able to handle the pre-announcement
with or without the packet 2, regardless it is specified only in 5.2.1 as an optional packet or both in 5.2.1 and 6.x.3.1,
it is agreed to not consider in 6.x.1.1 the case of the handing over of a train 2.0 between two RBCs 2.1. However it
is also agreed that the term “optional” in the pre-announcement message is not at all appropriate, since it is
confirmed that the sending of the packet 2 is mandatory for a handing over RBC 2.1 (except if this RBC hands over
a train 2.0). In other terms the RBC 2.1 cannot choose to discard the packet 2 when received from on-board. The
same also goes for packet 5.
Concerning the other U remarks/suggestions in the post 02/10 about the SRS clause 3.15.1.2.1 b) and SRS chapter
6 related clauses, they are all rejected because these requirements are only valid for HO RBCs.
Conclusion: the CR is closed with the modifications agreed during the meeting, i.e. those ones resulting from the
above and the ones resulting from the other comments embedded in the file posted on 02/10. See parts highlighted
in blue in the embedded file below.
ERA_solution_propos
al_for_CR299_EECT081015.docx
Post meeting note: the terms “additional” (replacing “optional”) and “if available” have also been added in the pre-
2 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #14 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
announcement message in 6.x.3.1.
Further to the CR 1021 removal from the B3R2, it is agreed to de-scope item 2 and to close the CR with only the
already agreed solution for the item1.
740
Unclear requirements
concerning functions active in
L2/L3 only
As a result, the Item 2 of the CR 0740 will be either moved to a new CR or incorporated into CR1021 so as to
extend its scope.
Action 14.01 ERA (24/12/15) : to reflect whether CR740 item 2 must be moved to a new CR or can be incorporated
in CR1021
Regarding the SUBSET-037: some comments/replies of the version 3.1.1 review sheets are revisited or refined; see
tags “EECT061015” in the embedded files below.
Review Subset-037 Unisig_COM_CR741 v311G_EoG - 29_09_2015-EECT.docx
Euroradio FIS v3 1 1 G - 29_09_2015-EECT.doc
741
Packet data transmission for
ETCS
In particular the following actions are derived:
Action 14.02 U (20/10/15): to deliver SUBSET-037 version 3.1.3 including TCP parameters
Action 14.03 U (27/10/15): to deliver SUBSET-037 version 3.1.4 with all the agreed comments implemented (and
also the modifications resulting from CR1237)
Regarding the FFFIS Euroradio: some comments/replies of the version 12.64 r2 review sheets are revisited or
refined; see tags “EECT061015” in the embedded file below
3 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #14 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
Unisig_COM_CR741 Euroradio FFFIS v12 64 r2_EECT061015.doc
Action 14.04 EUG (27/10/15): to deliver a next version of FFFIS Euroradio with all the agreed comments
implemented
The review comments from U (01/10/15) and the resulting EUG proposal (05/10/15) for the two leftovers spotted by
U are discussed. It is agreed to close the CR with two minor modifications, see parts highlighted in blue in the
embedded file below.
1152
Avoid increase of permitted
speed and target distance
Solution_proposal_for
_CR1152_EECT071015.docx
U informs that they have not been able to fulfil the action 13.08. The main reason was the impossibility to agree a
definition for the train orientation in SUBSET-023 in particular because the term “train orientation” in SUBSET-034
clause 2.5.1.4.5 forms a circular reference (the “train orientation” in 2.5.4.1.5 leads to the determination of the
“virtual” active cab but the train orientation in ETCS results itself from the active cab information received through
the TI).
1163
Train interface – Track
conditions related outputs to
be harmonized
Actually it appears that the SUBSET-034 clause 2.5.1.4.5 wrongly uses the term train orientation, with another
meaning than the one used in the SRS chapter. The real meaning is the “main running direction” of the vehicle,
which can e.g. be determined through a dedicated switch.
As a result, it is agreed:


to re-confirm the use of the term “train orientation” in the SRS
in SUBSET-034 to replace “train orientation direction” with “main running direction” in 2.5.1.4.5 and to
modify the note 2.5.1.4.6 to add “or a dedicated switch” at the end of the sentence.
4 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #14 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION

to add an entry in SUBSET-023 for train orientation, with the content of the SRS clause 3.6.1.5.
The detailed update of the solution proposal will be taken over by ERA resuming from the file provided by U on
02/10/15, which includes a few editorial modifications due to 3 leftovers detected by the Test Spec WG, see parts
highlighted in blue in the embedded file below.
CR1163_solution_021
015.docx
It is also agreed that no further discussion is needed, i.e. the CR will be closed once ERA has implemented the
modifications agreed above.
Further to the issuance of SUBSET-137 v0.2.0, EUG has submitted a new batch of comments. The outstanding
ones are discussed; see tags “EECT 06-10-15” in the embedded files below.
Online_KMS_Subset_
0.2.0_Review_EECT061015.docx
1237
KMS evolution
Concerning EUG comment #6 (linked on ERA comment#2 on version 0.1.0) : ERA clarifies that to split the table of
references had never been requested. On the contrary, it is agreed to have just one single list of references in the
document (i.e. to not use any longer the old fashioned terms “informative” and “normative”). A reference is
mandatory only if it is explicitly stated in the core of the document.
Action 14.05 U (27/10/15): To gather the “normative” and “informative” references both in SUBSET-037 and
SUBSET-137 into a single “references” section.
Moreover, ERA also highlights the two following quality issues:
5 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #14 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION


the clauses 3.3.1.1 and 3.4.1.1 on top of the Acronyms/Abbreviations and Terms/definitions“ tables are
wrong. Actually these clauses should be formulated the other way around, i.e. they should be formulated as
e.g. in SUBSET-039.
some acronym (e.g. APN) are as a matter of fact common to at least 2 documents, they should therefore be
only listed in SUBSET-023 and removed from the concerned documents.
Action 14.06 U (27/10/15) : To draft a list with all the abbreviations/definitions/acronyms to be incorporated
in SUBSET-023 concerning CR 0741 and CR 1237
Regarding the action 11.08 (“To clarify the KMS PS service setup”), the paper circulated by EUG is reviewed, see
embedded file below.
Action_11_08_CR123
7-EECT061015.docx
In particular for the part regarding the introduction of Multiplexing technology on the interface between EVC and the
MT: considering that anyway the MT will have to be enhanced with at least EGPRS and that to make it mandatory
for the MT only does not make any sense if inter-changeability is to be kept, ERA decides that it will be mandatory
for both the ETCS on-board and the MT. It also obviously makes more easily room to upcoming or other future IP
based functions.
However U ER WG considers that there could be unclear requirements in ETSI 27.010 that could hamper the
certification of the ETCS on-board equipment.
Action 14.07 U (U to confirm the date by 09/10/15): To check if ETSI standard 27.010 has any fuzzy area that
could hamper the ETCS on-board certification
Post meeting note: further to an email exchange with I. Wendler (see embedded file below), it is also necessary to
ensure that the MT is able to handle multiple PDP context at the same time; otherwise the multiplexing of the
6 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #14 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
interface would make no sense.
Action 14.08 EUG (EoG) (27/10/15): To check whether ETSI 27.010 can be specified as a mandatory feature in the
EDOR
Regarding the action 11.08b (“To update the review sheet to fix the misaligned texts in the answer column”): See
embedded file circulated by EUG on 01/10/15.
Online_KMS_Subset_
0.1.0_Review_Sheet_Action_11.08b.docx
Concerning the interface between Euroradio and KMS, U considers that a coordinating function inside SUBSET-037
shall be implemented for managing the KMS resources between the Security Layer and the User Space. The
implementation of this coordinating function will be provided by Unisig with the SUBSET-037 version 3.1.3 (see
action 14.02 in CR741).
Although originally not scheduled for this meeting, the updated DMI part of the solution proposal (posted by ERA
07/09/15) has been commented by U. See replies tagged “EECT071015” in the Word comments inside the file
distributed separately “CR1249 - ERA_ERTMS_015560 part_EECT071015.docx”.
1249
Problems with pre-indication
1262
Issues related to the initiation
With these last clarifications, the solution proposal is complete and likewise the other CRs (CR1107, CR1187,
CR1084) that form with CR1249 the bundle that is currently undergoing a validation campaign, the CR can be
formally closed (ERA decision), however with opposition from EUG.
The outcome of the action 13.09 is discussed. It shows that it is far from being granted that a MT of a B3R2 train
7 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #14 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
of a communication session by
an RBC
could properly process a trackside originated CS call.
Considering that EUG could not table any detailed evidence on how the function implemented in the DB project
really works and that the list of shortcomings brought in by U remains as it is, ERA decides that the functionality for
the incoming calls from RBC to OBU will be removed for the B3 R2. It is also recalled that like for other outstanding
open points in B2, backward compatibility with not interoperable/bugged functionality can by definition not be
sought. The DB implementation will therefore remain a national function, which will not even be interoperable with
B2 on-boards other than those ones equipped by the two concerned suppliers.
Concerning the GSM-R part of the CR, no feedback from UIC was received prior to the meeting on the modifications
for EIRENE FRS and SRS proposed by ERA in June 2015. The UIC input received during the meeting will be
analysed by ERA and the CR will be closed unilaterally by ERA, without consolidated position either from EUG or
from U. Moreover, ERA recalls the recommendation mentioned in the September EECT meeting, consisting in
preventing call from RBCs (or from any calling entity) from reaching the MT, through the network subscriber profile.
The proposal from U (02/10/15) to add a new clause in SRS chapter 9 is refined as follows: “When a clause
contains an on-board and/or trackside requirement but also an informative part and/or a definition, the clause is
classified as a requirement”. However EUG cannot yet agree during the meeting and would like to reflect on this.
1266
Classification of SRS
requirements
Regarding the action 13.10: both the U and EUG inputs are reviewed. The U proposal to specify both the trackside
and on-board requirements separately is retained. The EUG counter proposal to express them in a positive way is
also retained, however substituting “only one” with ‘at most one” and not retaining the term “for the same direction”
for the train-to-track messages, which do not have any direction.
Regarding the U input for the Excel file itself (new column 02/10/15), ERA confirms that in chapter 2 a bundle of U
comment had never been processed and that replies are provided in the embedded file below.
Regarding the U comment on the way chapter 6 clauses should be interpreted, ERA recognises that the proposed
inheritance principle cannot fly for clauses of type “clause x.x.x.x shall be replaced with “yyyyyyy”” and that most
likely a case by case double classification (replacement clause + replacing clause) is needed
8 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #14 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
Action 14.09 ERA (20/10/15): to make a proposal on how to unambiguously classify the chapter 6 clauses
With the exception of the forgotten ones in chapters 2 and of the general one in chapter 6, all the other items
marked as “D” are reviewed and agreed; see cells highlighted in blue in the embedded file below.
Classification_SRS_cl
auses_v5_EECT081015.xlsx
1277
D7 of SoM procedure is
reached while no Mobile
Terminal is registered yet
The comments posted by U (27/08/15) and EUG (02/09/15) are discussed. It is agreed to close the CR with all the
proposals resulting from agreed replies, see tags “EECT071015” in the Word comments inside the embedded file
below.
ERA_solution_propos
al_for_CR1277_EECT071015.docx
The ERA review comments are discussed, see tags “EECT071015” in the embedded file below.
1278
SUBSET-074 upgrade to
Baseline 3 Release 2 (B3R2)
SUBSET-074v301ERA
review_EECT071015.docx
Action 14.10 U (U to confirm the date by 09/10/15): to provide a new version SUBSET-074 as per agreed review
comments
1279
Inconsistencies between
Subset-034, Subset-035 and
Subset-058
In response to the ERA comments posted on 03/09/15, U has circulated (on 02/10/15) a counter proposal, see
embedded file below.
9 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #14 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
Solution proposal for
CR1279 20151002.docx
ERA points out that this counter proposal dated 02/10/15 does not address the fact that it relies on a (transfer)
function between the TI and STM interfaces, which can only be supplier specific. In particular ERA also spots that if
failure state of certain information is used in the FFFIS STM, it should at least be mentioned in the SUBSET-034. U
does not want to clean up the SUBSET-058 accordingly, having in mind that this should rather be fully specified in
the FFFIS TI.
Conclusion: it is preferable today not to emphasize this inconsistency by putting forward a kind of black hole in the
SUBSET-035 updating. The CR is therefore removed from the B3R2 and its resolution should be linked to the CR
1174
The comments posted by U (01/09/15) are discussed. It is agreed to close the CR with all the proposals resulting
from agreed replies, see tags “EECT071015” in the Word comments inside the embedded file below.
1280
System version number
increment for B3R2
ERA_solution_propos
al_for_CR1280_EECT071015.docx
10 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #14 for the B3 next release
4. Baseline Compatibility Analysis
All the CRs marked in blue (newly closed since the latest BCA review) in the tabs B3.1 definition and
B3MR1 maintenance have been reviewed. In the tab B2 maintenance, all the CR have been reviewed
until the CR852 inclusive. See embedded file below.
BCA_CR release
2015_EECT081015-v1.xlsx
5. AOB
5.1. Two STM issues (U email 24/09/15)
See embedded file below.
2 new STM related
items.docx
Item “STM in DA state in SB mode”: U introduces the topic. ERA considers that the proposed changes
to the transition table are already significant enough to make a separate CR and not to squeeze
them in the CR 1245.
It is agreed that this CR is a valid one but shall follow the triage process as any other CR.
Item “Display when V_PERMIT=V_TARGET“: U introduces the topic. ETCS just displays what the STM
requests taking into account how the priority between different supervision information is currently
specified in the DMI spec; the responsibility of what is displayed by the DMI display remains
therefore fully on the STM side. As a result the solution proposal requires a modification, which
would consist of an enhancement since not any ambiguity in the specification is demonstrated.
In any case it would be a new enhancement CR that should follow the triage process as any other CR.
5.2. Two issues in the equation for the calculation of the release speed on-board


The release speed calculated on-board does not consider any delay of the train trip similar to the
one that is taken into account for the permitted braking distance.
U considers that there is an wrong approximation one of the formula in clause 3.13.9.4.8.2
ERA considers that these two items should be submitted into a new CR, which shall follow the triage
process as any other CR
11 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #14 for the B3 next release
Attendance list
First
Name
Surname
Organisation
Signature E-mail address
Olivier
GEMINE
ERA
olivier.gemine@era.europa.eu
Alain
HOUGARDY
ERA
alain.hougardy@era.europa.eu
Oscar
REBOLLO BRAVO
ERA
oscar.rebollo@era.europa.eu
DOMINGO
ERA
begona.domingo@era.europa.eu
BAILES
CER
Ron.Bailes@atoc.org
DIJKMAN
ERTMS U.G.
rdijkman@ertms.be
APPIAH
ERTMS U.G.
sappiah@ertms.be
TREYDEL
ERTMS U.G.
rtreydel@ertms.be
LORENZO
ERTMS U.G.
alfonso.lorenzo@ineco.com
MCGRADY
ERTMS U.G.
amcgrady@ertms.be
Marta
PORRO
UNIFE/UNISIG
mporro@cafsignalling.com
Staffan
PETTERSSON
UNIFE/UNISIG
staffan.pettersson@se.transport.bombardier.com
Philippe
PRIEELS
UNIFE/UNISIG
philippe.prieels@transport.alstom.com
Begona
(day 1)
Ron
(days 2
and 3)
Rob
(days 1
and 2)
Sharvind
(day 1)
Roman
Alfonso
(day 3)
Aidan
(day 1)
Stefan
(day 1)
Francois
(day 1)
Frank
(day 1)
FRITZSCHE
HAUSMAN
KAISER
UNIFE/UNISIG
UNIFE/UNISIG
UNIFE/UNISIG
stefan.fritzsche@thalesgroup.com
francois.hausman@transport.alstom.com
frank.kaiser@siemens.com
12 / 12