Minutes of Meeting
EECT #07 for the B3 next release
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #07 for the B3 next release
Lille, 9th, 10th and 11th March 2015
1. Adoption of the agenda and approval of the minutes for the meeting on 10&11/02/2015
The agenda is adopted with no modification and further to remarks/suggestions from UNISIG
(Email P. Prieels 03/03/15) the minutes of the EECT meeting held on 10&11/02/15 are approved
with the following modifications, see revision marks in the embedded file.
Minutes_EECT_10021
5_v2revmarks.docx
Regarding the following U comments in the P. Prieels’ email:
 Comments # 1, 2, 3 and 7: rejected
2. B3 next release – Triage
The following inputs (see embedded file and excerpt from P. Prieels email below) were received
prior to the meeting, as per various actions allocated to EUG and UNISIG:
EECT7 Pre
assessment homework.docx
Email P. Prieels 27/02/15: U assessment of the following CRs:
Action 06.05 “To check the validity of the CR (is such supervision gap really not acceptable for
national systems transitions?).”: This CR has been initiated by lab tests which just confirmed the
behaviour as per specifications. Since the engineering of NTC level transition borders is mainly
under the responsibility of infra managers, U leaves it to EUG to state whether this CR is needed
or not.
Action 06.06 “To improve the problem description otherwise the CR will be rejected in the next
meeting.”: in Feb15 EECT meeting, it was said that “CR validity is questionable: SS35 clause
5.2.4.1 clearly states that it is the TI input signals which are transmitted over the FFFIS STM, i.e.
the same ones that are received by the ETCS on-board on the Train Interface.”. As already
expressed in this EECT meeting, U does not consider that the STM specifications are fully clear
about the train interface information that has to be sent to the STMs. For instance, the variable
M_TICAB_STATUS is defined in Subset-058 as the “Cab status on Train Interface” while its values
1 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #07 for the B3 next release
are not reflecting the information received on the train interface. Indeed, the values of this
variable directly indicate which cab is active (“cab A active” or “cab B active”). This is not the
information received from the train interface which consists on a status “active”/”not active” for
each of the two cabs (see clauses 2.5.1.1 and 2.5.1.3 in Subset-034). Information about which
cab is active (A or B) is therefore “a processed” information and not the information as received
from train interface.
However, U acknowledges that the current problem description is built on the notion of “raw
data”. This notion does not appear in the ETCS specifications today. The Train Interface is not a
mandatory standard in its lower level layers, i.e. the physical form of the information received
from the train interface is not part of a mandatory standard. CR issue can therefore not be
referenced to any existing specifications of the Annex A. CR rejection can therefore be agreed
today. U will reconsider the re-creation of this CR if SS-119 becomes mandatory in the future.
Action 06.10 “To reconsider how ATO messages should be dealt with in the DMI (permanent
display or current text messages management)”: UNISIG leaves it to the users to express their
preference.
a) Review of the list of open actions and pending assessments of CRs
b) Assessment of new CR received
See embedded excel file with the result of the discussions for items a) and b)
See corresponding embedded file in the minutes of the April meeting
c) Project Plan:
The Agency confirms that the 6 new CRs (resulting from the RISC bilateral meetings) have been
incorporated in the project plan.
The Agency clarifies that those 6 CRs will be treated as any other CRs. So, first a compatible solution
(if possible) will be drafted and then the BCA exercise will be done for them.
2 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #07 for the B3 next release
3. Change Requests - Technical Resolution
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
The review of the comments from EoG WG on the paper “ERA action no trk order v4” is stopped at comment # 6,
because U tables the idea to upload and store on-board the transmission mode (CS or PS) together with the
authentication keys. As a result, the need to send from trackside this transmission mode (entry into an RBC area) or
to memorise the transmission mode of the last session (SoM) would disappear completely and would drastically
simplify the whole picture for ETCS PS functionality. U comments on paper “ERA action no trk order v4” were not
discussed (because not received early enough and mistakenly not distributed to EUG).
The likelihood of having CS still up and running while PS not is then discussed and since it appears that it can only
happen when the SGSN (which are usually redounded) is down, it is proposed not to specify any feature with
regards to such unlikely situation, especially because it will not exist anymore in the “PS only” target communication
system. As a result if the PS service is down, the same operational procedures as today should be applied when the
radio communication service is down, e.g. to move the trains in SR mode without any connection to the RBC.
0741
Packet data transmission for
ETCS
Post meeting note: During the discussion, the “short number” feature, which could however be used to trigger a CS
radio connection was overlooked.
ERA remarks also that for the off-line key management, it is unclear how the coexistence of B2 and B3 MR1 trains
with B3 R2 trains could be managed.
=> Action 07.09 U (08/04/2015): To assess the impact on Ss-038/SUBSET-114 of such proposal to manage the
transmission mode together with the authentication keys.
In the light of the above and of the six first comments of the EoG WG review sheet, the following principles are
agreed and confirmed:


The ETCS PS service set-up is made of both the GPRS attach and the PDP context activation with the
ETCS APN
As long as there is no need to use the two MTs for CS communications, the attempts to set-up the
ETCS PS service are made continuously (polling function) by the ETCS on-board on one (and only one)
3 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #07 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
MT as soon as it is registered to a given radio network. As a result, there is no need to worry about
developing such function in the MT (see also minutes of EECT #06).
while the following principles need to be further checked:


The RBC/RIU transmission mode shall be uploaded and stored on-board together with the
authentication keys and shall always be used by the on-board when it is necessary to establish a radio
connection
When the ETCS PS service is not set up and the transmission mode is PS, no radio connection shall be
established and the driver shall be informed in the same way he is today (exception TBC: in SoM,
selection of “short number” by the driver)
=> Action 07.09b EUG/U (08/04/2015): To check the above principles.
The ERA and EUG comments 03/03/15 are reviewed and the solution proposal updated by U (27/02/15) is agreed
with two modifications to clauses 3.15.1.3.8 first bullet and 3.18.4.3.1, also with few other editorial findings (see text
highlighted in blue in the embedded file below.
0933
Storing of RBC contact
information
SG solution proposal
for CR933_EECT090315.docx
This solution proposal also indicates that it should supersede the problem description of the CR1261.
Action 07.10 U (08/04/15): To check if CR1261 can be superseded
1078&
1187
Display of indication marker &
Indication marker
inconsistency
The superseding of CR1078 by CR1187 was agreed prior to the meeting.
For CR1187, the two U comments (27/02/15) against the ERA solution proposal 04/02/15, also supported by EUG
4 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #07 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
(03/03/15), are reviewed:


U comment 1: ERA acknowledges it but indicates that it will be very likely affected by the solution to the
CR1249 about the pre-indication
U comment 2: Accepted
Because of U comment 1, it is agreed to freeze the CR1187 till the CR1249 is resolved.
Regarding the U comments 27/02/15, ERA observes that they somehow invalidate the U problem description.
EUG explains that they do not agree with the "never increase" principle for the target distance. In spite of the other
EUG comment (“For the restriction of the speed we do not see such a problem”), ERA explains that there might be a
strange effect because while the displayed speed is clipped the supervised speed is not. In case the displayed P
speed plateau is long (e.g. further to a long distance without relocation it can last several hundreds of meters) and
the driver would drive above this displayed P speed with no effect on the DMI (i.e. without any change to the
supervision status), this could undermine his confidence in the system.
1152
Avoid increase of permitted
speed and target distance
Since the problem spotted by the submitter (U) about the SB feedback functionality remains (the implementation
and the testing of the clause 3.13.10.4.2.1 is impossible), it is wondered how the SB feedback functionality should
really work, especially when there is relocation after the feedback algorithm has started to reduce Tbs1 and Tbs2
Considering the above, it is proposed to investigate whether the two clauses 3.13.10.4.2.1 & 3.13.10.4.7.1 could be
just deleted (i.e. not replaced with another one generalising the principle).
Action 07.11 EUG (08/04/15): To reconsider if the "never increase" generalised principle can be revoked for the
speed and also if this existing principle can also be removed when the SB feedback function is active.
The following open points for the FFFIS are reviewed and agreed as follows:
1237
KMS evolution

Use of APN: EUG wants to use one of the two ETCS mobiles, however it is agreed to use an APN distinct
from the one used for the ETCS application (i.e. EVC <=> RBC/RIU).

5 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #07 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION



New Subset or extension of SUBSET-114: It is agreed to keep the scope the SUBSET-114 unchanged and
to create a new SUBSET for the FFFIS on-line key management
ATO Keys: further to the decision taken in the frame of the CR1238, the ATO trackside and ATO OBU will
be two new KM entities and this needs to reflected in both SUBSET-114 and FFFIS on-line Key
Management
It is confirmed that the on-line Key Management is only applicable for PS areas.
Regarding KMAC renewal triggering event: EUG proposes the following simplified solution proposal:



at power on
every x hours, x being configured in the on-board and determined by the home KMC.
on maintenance request
Action 07.11b U (TBD): To assess the EUG proposal for KMAC triggering events
FFFIS TLS with or without PKI: EUG requests the PKI as a mandatory feature while U would like to keep it optional,
i.e. to keep open the possibility to use PSK (pre-shared keys) instead of PKI. U will draft this part in a dedicated
section of the FFFIS so that a decision on the PKI architecture can be taken later on without impacting significantly
the rest of the document.
Security level for the KMS: EUG requests a statement about how to deal with cyber security (Use of Common
Criteria for cyber secure development process). U explains that they do not agree on putting cyber security process
requirements inside the FFFIS as this subset will specify only the interface. Any addition of such process
requirements has to be justified technically and economically. U also underlines that the EUG request does not
always match the requirements in call for tenders / contracts of the railways. EUG explains that this is coming from
the outcome of the KPMG study, which in their view clearly indicates the impact on ERTMS safety if certain security
measures are not taken, and as well as from the WP description of the TEN funding. ERA clarifies that the security
is for sure not in the scope of this CR, which is only the delivery of a FFFIS. About this latter, EUG/U requests a
delay on the planned delivery (initially by May). Post meeting note: U confirms that the delivery of the FFFIS will be
done on 26/05/2015
6 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #07 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
U proposes to ask for a review of the new subset by the ENISA. It is agreed that U contacts ENISA.
Action 07.12 U (26/05/15): To deliver the FFFIS on-line key management document.
EUG aims at delivering updated documents (FRS, ORS and Strategy document) in week 14 based on EECT
meeting conclusions.
Action 07.12b EUG (03/04/15): deliver these updated documents.
U agrees that the previous review round is closed (even if not agreeing to all the EUG replies) and will instead focus
on review of the updated documents, possibly repeating ‘old’ comments.
Regarding the U remark about the possible need for an additional requirement in SUBSET-035 (see last paragraph
of U posting 27/02/15), the EUG answer (04/03/15) is agreed.
Further to the EUG statement 04/03/15, the U solution proposal 27/02/15 is slightly amended. It is also agreed to
modify the wording of the clause 5.8.3.7.2 (“on executing a transition to level NTC” instead of “if the level NTC is
entered”). The agreed solution consists therefore of the following:
1245
Display of ETCS override in
level NTC



1255
Impossibility to transmit
unknown values in the
message “Additional data”
1260
Inconsistent set of clauses
Add new SRS clause 5.8.3.7.1 to read “Exception 1: in case the Override function has been activated by an
STM (see Subset-035), the status “override active” shall not be indicated to the driver.”
Add new SRS clause 5.8.3.7.2 to read “Exception 2: in case the Override function has been activated by
selection of “Override” while being in level 0, 1, 2 or 3, the status “override active” shall stop to be indicated
to the driver on executing a transition to level NTC.”
Modify clause 8.2.3.1.9 of ERA_ERTMS_015560 v3.4.0 to read “Symbol MO03 (active override) shall be
shown as long as the override function is active and has to be displayed (see [1]).”
The ERA solution proposal 24/02/15 was agreed prior to the meeting.
The ERA solution proposal 24/02/15 is agreed, with the editorial amendment as proposed by EUG (03/03/15).
7 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #07 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
regarding the service brake
interface in SH mode
The position paper from the EUG was discussed, see file embedded below.
SRS classification
summary EECT_090315.docx
1266
Classification of SRS
requirements
EUG/U also spots an inconsistency between the classification Excel file and the SRS for what concerns the way the
unnumbered/unlettered bullet point lists are referred. It is agreed that for the informative clauses, the bullet lists will
remain as they are. For the mandatory requirements, the intertwined alphabetical lists look also to be not suitable,
but no conclusion can be drawn.
It is also agreed that the review comments (note: so far U has only reviewed chapters 3 and 4) will be first assessed
off-line, only the “rejected” ones or “to be discussed” one will be addressed during the next EECT meetings.
Regarding the AoE architecture (action 06.14), the following EUG inputs were received prior to the meeting, see
embedded files below:
ATO system
architecture.pptx
1238
Automatic Train Operation
over ETCS
Excerpt mail AM
CR1238_Action 06.14.docx
The following decisions/actions are taken:


Communication link: It is agreed that a separate communication link will be dedicated to ATO data
exchange between ATO TS and OB entities, i.e. the ATO communication session will not be mixed with the
ETCS one. This implies that the on-board should be fitted with a 3rd MT when the ATO function is
implemented.
FIS/FFFIS/integrated solution: It has been evidenced during the meeting that even though the SUBSET-130
is named FIS, it cannot be currently considered as such since most of the functional interface items are left
8 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #07 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION


on purpose to the supplier’s discretion. It is therefore agreed that such FIS approach cannot be retained. On
the other hand, defining a FFFIS for the end of 2015 is unrealistic. Moreover, the benefit of such FFFIS is
also challenged compared to an ATO functional module fully integrated inside the ETCS OBU. This
integrated solution could even make ETCS more attractive since ATO will be seen as part of the wide range
of functions offered by ETCS. U is not in favour of implementing a FFFIS which would be a useless
mandatory implementation in case e.g. both ETCS and ATO functions are implemented in the same HW.
This would lead to a more expensive solution for the users.
Action 07.11c All (08/04/15): To provide a position on the architecture (FFFIS or internal function), and in
case it is an internal function whether it should be mandatory or optional.
Train interface: it is agreed that if the FFFIS solution is retained, the ATO-OB shall have its own (direct)
interface to the train. On the other hand, if the integrated solution is retained, the SUBSET-034 will
obviously be amended. The same principle is also valid for the ORD interface.
Direct interface to (separate) BTM: This will be of no added value. It is therefore agreed not to have such
direct BTM interface
The ERA/EUG/U consolidated comments on the paper “ATO Impact on ETCS - Position Paper - 0.0.1”, are
reviewed during the meeting, see embedded file below. The replies to the comments still relevant following the
above architecture discussion are marked with “BB” initials:
ATO Impact on ETCS
- Position Paper - 0.0.1_revconsolidated - review 150311.doc
Another outstanding point discussed during the review of the paper “ATO Impact on ETCS” relates to the Data entry
procedure. The preferred solution is without any additional specific ATO data. It has been agreed that if there are
additional data items required for ATO, they must be duly justified and standardised (commonalities). If any, whether
their entry may be skipped or not will be decided later on.
9 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #07 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
It is also clarified that the door control will not be managed by ETCS (no impact on ETCS)
Action 07.12c U (08/04/15): To provide an update of the document “ATO impact on ETCS”
Action 07.13 U (08/04/15): To analyse/find commonalities in the possible additional data for ATO.
The consolidated review sheet on SUBSET-125 is discussed and stopped due to lack of time at comment EUG #13
(included). The review will be resumed in an extra meeting on 20/03/15. see file embedded below for the answers:
SUBSET - 125 - v009
- consolidated review sheet_040315 - EECT150311.docx
10 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #07 for the B3 next release
4. Any Other Business
CR 0239: ERA explains that as a result of the CR1260, the CR239 will be re-opened and an
amended solution will be posted at short notice.
Action 07.14 ERA (01/04/15): To update the solution as per CR1260
CR 1249: ERA introduces the background of the solution proposal tabled by RFF in the frame of
the bilateral meetings only.
11 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #06 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
Robert
DIJKMAN
Laura
ARENAS
Aidan
McGRADY
Roman
TREYDEL
Ernst
KLEINE
Sharvind
APPIAH
Ron
BAILES
CER
ron.bailes@atoc.org
Philippe
PRIEELS
UNIFE/UNISIG
philippe.prieels@transport.alstom.com
Benoit
BIENFAIT
UNIFE/UNISIG
benoit.bienfait@transport.alstom.com
Staffan
Francois
EIM / ERTMS
U.G.
EIM / ERTMS
U.G.
EIM / ERTMS
U.G.
EIM / ERTMS
U.G.
EIM / ERTMS
U.G.
EIM / ERTMS
U.G.
rdijkman@ertms.be
larenas@ertms.be
amcgrady@ertms.be
rtreydel@ertms.be
ekleine@ertms.be
sappiah@ertms.be
PETTERSSON UNIFE/UNISIG staffan.pettersson@se.transport.bombardier.com
HAUSMAN
UNIFE/UNISIG
francois.hausman@transport.alstom.com
12 / 12