Minutes of Meeting
EECT #15 for the B3 next release
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #15 for the B3 next release
Lille, 03rd and 04th November2015
1. Adoption of the agenda and approval of the minutes of the meeting held on 06,07,08/10/2015
The agenda is adopted with the following amendment: on request by UNISIG and ERA three
items are added in AOBs, see section 5.
The minutes of the EECT meeting # 14 held on 06,07&08/10/15 are agreed with modifications,
see revision marks in the file “Minutes_EECT_061015_v2revmarks.docx” distributed separately.
2. B3 next release – Triage
a) Review of the list of open actions and pending assessments of CRs
Item not covered, due to lack of time
b) Assessment of new CR received
Item not covered, due to lack of time
c) Project Plan
Item not covered, due to lack of time
1 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #15 for the B3 next release
3. Change Requests - Technical Resolution
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
EIRENE SRS:
The modifications to the EIRENE SRS are presented by UIC. The following items are discussed and clarified:



741
Packet data transmission for
ETCS


The domain “.etcs” shall only be used for ETCS entities. It is agreed to make a request for a public domain.
The support of multiple PDP contexts and of multiplexed interface by the EDOR is considered as an M
requirement, not MI, as it would be an implementation issue.
The time that the data communication is disrupted due to radio cell change is currently considered as M
only in the document. The specific values proposed are still under discussion. ERA/EUG remark that high
values may impact the performance and that the concerned requirement could rather be classified as MI. U
explains that, for the PS data, the upper protocol layers take anyway care of error correction/repetitions; and
that disruption of around 1 second would be acceptable. The values suggested are within that range,
therefore it is agreed to keep this requirement classified as M
A revision of the references included in the EIRENE document is suggested: in particular the documents
from Annex A should not include version references, as these are the ones indicated in the TSI.
QoS defined for ETCS application is MI.
See tags “EECT041115” in the Word comments inside the embedded file below.
gsmr9225-1
2-EECT041115.docx
Regarding QoS, the profile is defined at the GSM-R network; the only thing that has to be requested is that it is
“Streaming” for ETCS. The other parameters are predefined.
Action 15.01 U (ASAP): in the SUBSET-037, to specify a request of a QoS profile only regarding the traffic class
2 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #15 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
(streaming) for ETCS.
SUBSET-037
Three batches of comments (against version 3.1.3 and 3.1.4) from individual railways have reached directly the ER
WG, with no circulation prior to the meeting. The two batches against version 3.1.3 were pre-discussed within the
ER WG while the one against version 3.1.4 has only been processed by the ER WG leader (Frank Kaiser). Some of
the comments are discussed during the meeting, see tags EECT 151104 inside the embedded file below.
Review Subset-037 Review subset-037 Review Subset-037
v313 DB + ERWG.docxv313 ProRail + ERWG.docx
v314 ProRail + Frank.docx
Regarding the discussion on TCP parameters: EUG requests to make as much as possible configurable all these
parameters from trackside point of view, they consider that recommending values in the SUBSET-037 could be an
interoperability problem if the solution does not work with such a recommendation. U clarifies that the values
recommended are just for information and that what is mandatory is to be inside of the range of values defined in
8.3.3 Table 41. The ER WG intends to provide a document next year to justify their choice; currently they do not
have human resources to draft it. EUG points out that the justifications should precede the decision and not the
opposite. However ERA stresses that in the frame of the very tight B3R2 programme, the only pragmatic way
forward is to trust that the values chosen by the ER WG will be future proof at least until the next release.
Action 15.01b U (13/11/15) : To provide an updated SUBSET-037 as per comments agreed during the meeting.
Action 15.02 U (June 16): To provide a paper justifying the values chosen for the TCP parameters
Review of action 14.07 (“To check if ETSI standard 27.010 has any fuzzy area that could hamper the ETCS onboard certification”)
U has prepared the necessary modifications to the SUBSET-037 chapter 6, in order to make mandatory the
implementation of the ETSI 27.010 in the ETCS on-board. Concerning the DLC establishment services, it is agreed
3 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #15 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
not to predefine priority levels for applications other than ETCS (which is given the highest one) because these shall
be anyway managed by the EVC, the MT being the slave. See tag EECT 151104 inside the embedded file below,
listing the modifications to the SUBSET-037 chapter 6.
CR_27.010_EECT041
115.docx
No comment received from EUG on the ERA updated solution proposal (19/10/15). The review comments from U
(23/10/15) are discussed. The CR is closed with the agreed modifications highlighted in blue in the file embedded
below:
1087
Manual Network Selection
ERA_Solution_propos
al_for_CR1087_EECT031115.docx
1255
Impossibility to transmit
unknown values in the
message “Additional data
The ERA updated solution proposal (19/10/15) was already agreed by U (23/10/15) and EUG (29/10/15) prior to the
meeting and is therefore closed.
Regarding the SUBSET-137:
The modifications implemented in SUBSET-137 0.3.0 are presented by U.
1237
KMS evolution
In particular, the section 7.2 is heavily questioned because it is not clear how an end-to-end connection could be
established between the on-board and a Certificate Authority (CA) or a Registration Authority (RA), which can be
anything like e.g. governmental organisations. It is therefore clarified that :

For Key Management, to access the Home KMC (and also CA and RA) will always be done via the Home
GGSN. U indicates that the values mnc and mcc will be taken from the IMSI. This does not change anything
on the communication side.
4 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #15 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION



the domain “.etcs” shall only be used for ETCS entities and KMC, not for the CA or the RA.
the home network shall be responsible through its KMS DNS to resolve the FQDN of both the CA and RA.
The QoS parameters for non-ETCS applications will be specified only in the EIRENE SRS and not in the
SUBSET-137. It has to be requested “as subscribed”, i.e. the EVC should not ask in the PDP context
activation for specific values.
To take into account the above, the section 7.2 is reworked accordingly (see embedded file below) together with the
necessity to modify the EIRENE SRS clauses 9.14.3 and 9.14.5 to reflect that.
Online_KMS_Subset_
0.3.0_EECT.docx
Action 15.03 UIC (ASAP) to derive the modifications to the EIRENE SRS clauses 9.14.3 and 9.14.5, in order to
deal with the establishment of OBU/CA&RA connections.
Another modification not resulting from the previous actions/decisions is also introduced by U, which consists of the
suppression of “abort” message. This modification comes from a divergence between the KMS WG and the ER WG,
which has been arbitrated by ERA and which was resolved just before the issuance of this version 0.3.0.
Post meeting note: the memo embedded below, drafted after the resolution of this issue, describes this latter and
justifies the suppression of the “abort” message.
Management of KMS
priority over IP .docx
EUG mentions that, although posted on 28/10, they have not had the opportunity to look at this version 0.3.0 and
they would like to perform a last quality check of the document. ERA replies that first the CR1237 will be closed
without any further SUBSET-137 review round and that this quality check will be part of the B3R2 documentation
5 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #15 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
quality check review after the implementation of the CRs into the concerned documents.
Regarding the SUBSET-037:
The necessary modifications induced by the CR1237 have been implemented by U in the SUBSET-037, mainly the
priority management of communication resources (new section 8.5) and need not any further discussion.
Regarding the action 14.06 (To draft a list with all the abbreviations/definitions/acronyms to be incorporated in
SUBSET-023 concerning CR 0741 and CR 1237):
The paper drafted by U is not reviewed (lack of time). However it is expected that its content is not controversial and
it will be reviewed after the meeting by ERA and most likely incorporated as such in the SUBSET-023. Any further
comment will then be addressed in the frame of the B3R2 documentation review round.
Others:
In addition the modifications to the following other documents have been overlooked so far:


1265
Miscellaneous editorial
findings in B3 MR1
SUBSET-026 chapter 2 figure 1: wherever the labels SUBSET-114 and SUBSET-038 are present, the label
SUBSET-137 must be added
SUBSET-104 table 4.3.2: a new line “SUBSET-137” needs also to be added with an “N” in the “Impacting”
column.
New items are added due to feedback from the Test Spec WG and on request by U (e-mails 30/10/2015, 31/10/15
and 03/11/15). All these new items are discussed and agreed. See rows highlighted in yellow in the embedded file
below.
6 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #15 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
Misc_editorial_finding
s_in_B3MR1_v7_EECT031115.xlsx
Regarding the item about the term “ongoing” (unduly spelled “on-going” in some documents), it is agreed to
incorporate it for the 4 documents that could be identified during the meeting (S26, DMI, S35 and S39).
It is agreed to stop taking into consideration new items and to close the CR with the batch of items agreed during
the meeting, with only one exception: U will investigate whether there are other documents, to be anyway updated
for B3R2, where the correction could be brought.
Action 15.03b U (10/11/15): to investigate whether the term “ongoing”, incorrectly spelled “on-going”, can be found
in documents (in addition to S26, DMI, S35 and S39) to be updated for B3R2 for other reasons.
Post meeting note: in line #31 of the sheet “S26”, the section number has been corrected from 6.3.1.3 to 6.3.1.2.
The comments from U (28/10/15) on chapter 2 and 6 classification are discussed and agreed. See cells highlighted
in blue in the embedded file below.
1266
Classification of SRS
requirements
Classification_SRS_cl
auses_v7_EECT031115.xlsx
After this last review round, the agreed classification for the SRS 340 is successfully achieved.
7 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #15 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
Post meeting note: the cells “SRS modification” in ch3 lines 523 and 1709 are also slightly amended
(implementation issue in SRS 3.4.2)
The next step will consist in re-iterating the classification exercise for either the modified clauses or the added new
clauses brought in the SRS 3.4.2.
Action 15.04 ERA (ASAP): to propose the classification of the clauses updated/added in the SRS 3.4.2.
The EUG comment (30/10/15) on SUBSET-026 chapter 9 clause 9.2.3.2 is then discussed. ERA recalls that the
“primary” purpose of the classification exercise is to isolate the on-board requirements, which consequently also
consists in identifying indirectly the trackside requirements (also identified with the keyword “shall”) and the clauses
which do not belong to any of these two categories. ERA also observes that there might be some tables classified
as requirement, which do not actually include the keyword “shall”. It is therefore wondered whether the chapter 1
clause 1.7.1.1 should not have been amended to reflect the outcome of the classification exercise.
Action 15.05 ERA (ASAP): To reflect on how the chapter 1 should be amended to coherently reflect the
classification.
1278
SUBSET-074 upgrade to
Baseline 3 Release 2 (B3R2)
The CR is closed, since the updated SUBSET-074 posted by U on 20/10/15 implements all the modifications agreed
during the last October EECT meeting.
8 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #15 for the B3 next release
4. Baseline Compatibility Analysis
The BCA exercise is resumed and completed for the sheets “B3.1 definition” and “B3 MR1
maintenance”, see embedded file below.
BCA_CR release
2015_EECT031115-v1.xlsx
Regarding the CR 1249:
EUG justification for Q1 answer “no”:
EUG argues that some of their members still believe that only the lambda needs to be
considered when checking whether a train can fit a line for what concerns the maximum
tolerable braking distance and that the introduction of a configurable indication time makes the
braking distance not controllable by trackside.
ERA reminds again that for instance the guidance curve, left to the RU’s discretion, influences
also the braking distance. EUG remarks that the guidance curve can be inhibited by the trackside
(National Value). Although the existence of this National Value is highly questionable from
interoperability point of view, ERA replies that even if used there are still other degrees of
freedom for the RU (e.g. interface to Service Brake implemented or not) which will make the
braking distance depending not only from the lambda value, not speaking of the case of gamma
trains.
Therefore ERA stresses that to rely only the lambda might be still true for non ETCS systems but
this is undoubtedly wrong with ETCS and its highly configurable and sophisticated on-board
braking model. Therefore it is again recalled what was exhaustively explained in the minutes of
the September meeting: “....the indication time represents only a small contribution to the
overall braking distance calculated by the on-board equipment, which depends on many other
parameters (nominal emergency braking deceleration values, on-board correction factors,
guidance curve, calculation of the lambda, etc...) relying upon the Railway Undertaking itself.”
U justification for Q1/Q2 answer “no:
U explains that some trackside implementations (regarding the LX closure function) rely on some
kind of not flexible braking distance window (not only a maximum braking distance but also a
minimum braking distance would be required) and that a B3R2 train whose MA request would
be triggered 7 s later than the same train equipped with B3R1 could fail to comply some
National Rules for minimum LX closure warning times. ERA is strongly surprised that such
engineering could have seen the light, because it would de facto make impossible the operation
of a train performing better than those ones for which this non ETCS function is tailored.
9 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #15 for the B3 next release
Conclusion: it is confirmed (ERA decision) that the CR1249 is an on-board CR (Q1=yes, Q2= N/A),
dealing only with driver’s ergonomics.
Regarding the CR1265
After discussion it is agreed that the modifications to T_NVCONTACT (line 44 in document
“Misc_editorial_findings_in_B3MR1_v6.xlsx") are more than editorial, because in the current
baselines (B2 and B3MR1) it can still be interpreted that the reference message for the
T_NVCONTACT could be either a high priority message or not, while the CR1265 line 44 intends
to clarify that it is only normal priority messages. The concerned line is therefore removed (see
embedded file in section 3 - CR1265) and the answers to Q1/Q2 is set to N/A. In addition, U will
submit a new CR to be considered for a further release.
Conclusion
ERA wraps up the BCA for the 53 CRs whose solutions have been worked out in the frame of the
B3R2 programme. It is also underlined that this BCA exercise has been carried out with strict and
constant criteria, which consist of the application of the SUBSET-104 provisions. In particular
only the specifications have been taken into account and not any project or product specific
considerations.
Amongst these 53 CRs, there are 5 CRs with a “No” for Q1 and/or Q2. However ERA explains that
at this stage the intention is to keep all the CRs initially included in the basket and to incorporate
them in the SRS 3.4.2 and the other subdocuments to be delivered mid November.
The way the “paper” incompatibility of these five CRs will be tackled will be announced later.
5. AOB
 Use of term “Optional” for trackside versus “optional” for on-board
Like the Test Spec WG, U has also perceived the difference between the term optional for a
track-to-train packet (i.e. it is a design/implementation choice) and the term optional for
train-to-track packet (i.e. it is mandatory to send it, depending on the
context/circumstances), which does not look appropriate. A similar issue has been fixed for a
specific RBC-RBC message in the frame of the CR299 (use of the term “additional” instead).
ERA however states that it is not a pure editorial modification and that it will have to be
tackled after the B3R2.
 CR 1117
The Test Spec WG has spotted a flaw in the solution. They made a reading of the clause
3.5.3.7 a) as not having any exception and being contradicted by 3.5.3.9.1. Actually, the last
minute withdrawal (on request by U) of the introductory sentence proposed by ERA has led
to this misunderstanding. ERA therefore announces that the CR will be reopened to fix this.
Action 15.06 ERA (ASAP): to reopen the CR1117 and draft an amended solution.
 EVC definition
U points out that the abbreviation “EVC” exists in the SUBSET-023 but there is no
corresponding definition. This definition is important for the DMI-EVC interface. ERA
considers that the term EVC has been kept in the SUBSET-023 just because there were still a
10 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #15 for the B3 next release
few occurrences in some subdocuments that could not be substituted easily. Furthermore,
there is a definition of “vital” in the SUBSET-023 which makes the definition of EVC most
likely unnecessary.
11 / 12
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #15 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
Begona
(only day
2)
DOMINGO
ERA
begona.domingo@era.europa.eu
Ron
BAILES
CER
Ron.Bailes@atoc.org
Rob
DIJKMAN
ERTMS U.G.
rdijkman@ertms.be
Roman
TREYDEL
ERTMS U.G.
rtreydel@ertms.be
LORENZO
ERTMS U.G.
alfonso.lorenzo@ineco.com
APPIAH
ERTMS U.G.
sappiah@ertms.be
MCGRADY
ERTMS U.G.
amcgrady@ertms.be
Philippe
PRIEELS
UNIFE/UNISIG
philippe.prieels@transport.alstom.com
Luca
REPETTI
UNIFE/UNISIG
luca.repetti@ansaldo-sts.com
Jakub
MAREK
UNIFE/UNISIG
Marek.Jakub@azd.cz
Frank (only
day 2)
KAISER
François
HAUSMAN
UNIFE/UNISIG
francois.hausman@transport.alstom.com
Ingo (only
day 2)
WENDLER
UIC
ingo.wendler@sbb.ch
Alfonso
(only day
1)
Sharvind
(only day
2)
Aidan (only
day 2)
UNIFE/UNISIG
frank.kaiser@siemens.com
12 / 12