Just sounds a bit to colloquial for my taste. It’s your decision what you like to have in a this point. I think I doesn’t make an substantial difference.

 

Von: Merlin Pokam [mailto:notifications@github.com] 
Gesendet: Freitag, 1. März 2013 14:28
An: MerlinPokam/CENELEC-compliance_openETCS
Cc: Jan Welte
Betreff: Re: [CENELEC-compliance_openETCS] Review of document from janwelte (#1)

 

In D_2.1.2/openETCS_CENELEC-compliance_WP2_AEbt_mpo.tex:

> @@ -375,7 +384,7 @@ \section{Requirements regarding Hardware, operating system and the bus system}
>  
>  \chapter{Summary}
>  As task leader of the task D2.2 (according to \cite{FPP13}), AEbt has coordinated all the work. Basis, were the procedures listed in the section \ref{report} of this report. The result is a first set of requirements, which shall be fulfilled in order to assess the openETCS tools chain as T3 support tool and may be the openETCS application software as SIL4 software according to EN 50128:2011. \\\\Regarding <file:///\\\Regarding>  the openETCS application software, it is not clear in the current version of the PCA \cite{PCA12} which software SIL it should have. However, we recommend to develop it as SIL 4 software according to EN 50128:2011, in order to provide a software or part of it as certifiable COTS software for a future use.\\\\
> -The question whether "open proofs" is suitable for safety railway applications, is not the matter. It is more about the software safety process applied. In fact, the applied software safety process shall fulfill the requirements of the CENELEC standard EN 50128:2011 as well as security requirements. In this report, both have been addressed.
> +Overall "open proofs" is suitable for safety railway applications as the approach allows to demonstrate a qualified and safe software development. It is more about the software safety process applied. In fact, the applied software safety process shall fulfill the requirements of the CENELEC standard EN 50128:2011 as well as security requirements. In this report, both have been addressed.

Hello Jan,
is the sentense "The question whether "open proofs" is suitable for safety railway applications, is not the matter" not precise enough?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub <https://github.com/MerlinPokam/CENELEC-compliance_openETCS/pull/1/files#r3204106> .  <https://github.com/notifications/beacon/Qf2Yqid8pZQgEymGIWxjS2mYynXWWNA8Am3-id6wf7FO8XxhU3pVqDIJxwrIBRkF.gif>