UMTS Release 99 corrections continued:
==========
6.3 Proposed changes on 25.301
R2-022116 Proposed CR to 25.301 [R'99] on Clarification on RLC connection LG Electronics Inc
R2-022117 Proposed CR to 25.301 [Rel-4 shadow] on Clarification on RLC connection LG Electronics Inc
R2-022118 Proposed CR to 25.301 [Rel-5 shadow] on Clarification on RLC connection LG Electronics Inc
This document was presented by Seung-June Yi from LG Electronics.
The associated discussion paper was presented at the last meeting.
Discussion:
The need for the clarification is still not clear.
The sentence is also not totally clear.
Decision: The RLC connection is removed. Also the last sentence will be clarified (e.g. ‘is composed of 1 or 2 RLC entities…’).
R in R2-022209, R2-022210 and R2-022211. CR 067, 068 and 069.
R2-022209 Proposed CR 067 to 25.301 [R'99] on Clarification on RLC connection LG Electronics Inc
R2-022210 Proposed CR 068 to 25.301 [R'99] on Clarification on RLC connection LG Electronics Inc
R2-022211 Proposed CR 069 to 25.301 [R'99] on Clarification on RLC connection LG Electronics Inc
Presented by Yeung June from LG Electronics.
Discussion:
Decision: The three CRs were agreed.
6.4 Proposed changes on 25.302
R2-022035 Proposed CR to 25.302 [R'99] on Correction of transport to physical channel mapping for TDD IPWIreless
R2-022036 Proposed CR to 25.302 [Rel-4 shadow] on Correction of transport to physical channel mapping for TDD IPWIreless
R2-022037 Proposed CR to 25.302 [Rel-5 shadow] on Correction of transport to physical channel mapping for TDD IPWIreless
Presented by Tim Speigh from IPWireless.
Consequences if not approved were challenged.
Agreed into R2-02 2345, R2-02 2346 and R2-02 2347.
CR numbers are 129, 130 and 131.
6.5 Proposed changes on 25.303
There was no input under this agenda item.
6.6 Proposed changes on 25.304
There was no input under this agenda item.
6.7 Proposed changes on 25.305
There was no input under this agenda item.
6.8 Proposed changes on 25.306
There was no input under this agenda item.
6.9 Proposed changes on 25.321
R2-022069 Proposed CR to 25.321 [R'99] on MAC TVM Corrections Qualcomm
R2-022070 Proposed CR to 25.321 [Rel-4 shadow] on MAC TVM Corrections Qualcomm
R2-022071 Proposed CR to 25.321 [Rel-5 shadow] on MAC TVM Corrections Qualcomm
Discussion:
Is this CR really needed ?
Comment: The measurements are part of RRC, not MAC. Should we not leave it as this ?
Answer: This aligns the two specifications. Triggering is in RRC, measurement is in MAC.
Decision:
Agreed in R2-02 2348, R2-02 2349 and R2-02 2350.
CRs in 128, 129 and 130.
R2-022119 Proposed CR to 25.321 [R'99] on MAC header for DTCH and DCCH LG Electronics Inc
R2-022120 Proposed CR to 25.321 [Rel-4 shadow] on MAC header for DTCH and DCCH LG Electronics Inc
R2-022121 Proposed CR to 25.321 [Rel-5 shadow] on MAC header for DTCH and DCCH LG Electronics Inc
Discussion:
What is correct from the core specs. point of view ?
The figure is misleading, but even if misinterpreted, this will always be multiplexed.
Decision:
The C/T field is always included. The picture will be split.
The Figure will be changed as it is misleading.
RFC will be updated.
Agreed in R2-02 2351, R2-02 2352 and R2-02 2353.
CRs in 131, 132 and 133.
6.10 Proposed changes on 25.322
R2-021828 Proposed CR to 25.322 [R'99] on Correction to the behaviour after expiration of Timer_MRW during the SDU discard with explicit signalling procedure Nortel Networks
R2-021829 Proposed CR to 25.322 [Rel-4] on Correction to the behaviour after expiration of Timer_MRW during the SDU discard with explicit signalling procedure Nortel Networks
R2-021830 Proposed CR to 25.322 [Rel-5] on Correction to the behaviour after expiration of Timer_MRW during the SDU discard with explicit signalling procedure Nortel Networks
Discussion:
Decision:
Coversheet needs to be updated.
Agreed Tdoc in R2-022354, R2-022355, and R2-022356. CR numbers in 196, 197 and 198.
R2-021964 Proposed CR to 25.322 [R'99] on Clarification on SDU confirmation in RLC AM mode ASUSTeK
R2-021965 Proposed CR to 25.322 [Rel-4 shadow] on Clarification on SDU confirmation in RLC AM mode ASUSTeK
R2-021966 Proposed CR to 25.322 [Rel-5 shadow] on Clarification on SDU confirmation in RLC AM mode ASUSTeK
Discussion:
Comment: This obviously impacts the primitive section. It could be left to the implementation.
This could be handled in PDCP layer.
Decision:
The CRs were not agreed.
R2-022051 Proposed CR to 25.322 [R'99] on Corrections of RLC re-transmissions Ericsson
R2-022052 Proposed CR to 25.322 [Rel-4 shadow] on Corrections of RLC re-transmissions Ericsson
R2-022053 Proposed CR to 25.322 [Rel-5 shadow] on Corrections of RLC re-transmissions Ericsson
Presented by Johan from Ericsson.
T1 have indicated that they have some problems with implementing the mandatory RLC functionality. They propose it to remove a part from the specification.
Discussion:
Comment: this was already discussed in the past.
Where was this discussed ?
The T1 tests need to be updated if this CR is not agreed.
Nokia: This is an efficiency issue, not an essential change.
But there is no backward compatibility issue.
Change supported by Qualcomm and LG Electronics.
Decision:
Reason for change will be updated, together as the impact section.
UE and network are impacted.
Agreed in Tdocs in R2-02 2357, R2-02 2358, and R2-02 2359. CRs in 199, 200 and 201.
R2-022122 Proposed CR to 25.322 [R'99] on Corrections to RLC RESET procedure LG Electronics Inc
R2-022123 Proposed CR to 25.322 [Rel-4 shadow] on Corrections to RLC RESET procedure LG Electronics Inc
R2-022124 Proposed CR to 25.322 [Rel-5 shadow] on Corrections to RLC RESET procedure LG Electronics Inc
Presented by Seung-June Yi from LG Electronics Inc.
Discussion:
What do ‘simultaneous’ mean ?
Question: Could not the UTRAN detect it ? Then the change to the UE could be avoided.
Decision:
Agreed in Tdocs in R2-02 2360, R2-02 2361, and R2-02 2362. CRs in 202, 203 and 204.
R2-022186 Proposed CR to 25.322 [R'99] on Corrections on handling of timers during a RLC reset or re-establishment ASUSTeK
R2-022187 Proposed CR to 25.322 [Rel-4 shadow] on Corrections on handling of timers during a RLC reset or re-establishment ASUSTeK
R2-022188 Proposed CR to 25.322 [Rel-5 shadow] on Corrections on handling of timers during a RLC reset or re-establishment ASUSTeK
Presented by Rex Chen from ASUSTeK.
Discussion:
Question: Why are some of the timers not stopped? Is the exception intentional ?
Answer: No strong opinion on this.
Decision:
Agreed in Tdocs in R2-02 2363, R2-02 2364, and R2-02 2365. CRs in 205, 206 and 207.
6.11 Proposed changes on 25.323
R2-021967 Proposed CR to 25.323 [R'99] on Clarification on handling of erroneous PDCP PDUs ASUSTeK
R2-021968 Proposed CR to 25.323 [Rel-4 shadow] on Clarification on handling of erroneous PDCP PDUs ASUSTeK
R2-021969 Proposed CR to 25.323 [Rel-5 shadow] on Clarification on handling of erroneous PDCP PDUs ASUSTeK
Presented by Rex Chen from ASUSTeK.
Discussion:
Question: There were several points to investigate.
Decision: The CRs were not agreed.
R2-022125 Proposed CR to 25.323 [R'99] on Support for Bi-directional Radio Bearer LG Electronics Inc
R2-022126 Proposed CR to 25.323 [Rel-4 shadow] on Support for Bi-directional Radio Bearer LG Electronics Inc
R2-022127 Proposed CR to 25.323 [Rel-5 shadow] on Support for Bi-directional Radio Bearer LG Electronics Inc
Those documents were Withdrawn before presentation.
Discussion:
Decision:
R2-022217 Proposed CR to 25.323 [R'99] on the Mapping relation between PDCP and RLC LG Electronics Inc. and Siemens
R2-022218 Proposed CR to 25.323 [Rel-4 shadow] on the Mapping relation between PDCP and RLC LG Electronics Inc. and Siemens
R2-022219 Proposed CR to 25.323 [Rel-5 shadow] on the Mapping relation between PDCP and RLC LG Electronics Inc. and Siemens
Presented by Yeung-June from LG Electronics.
Discussion:
Question: “Depending on the radio bearer characteristic”: What was the intention?
Answer: Uni or bi-directionnel was the intention.
Last change: We should refer to entities instead.
Decision:
Agreed in Tdocs in R2-02 2366, R2-02 2367, and R2-02 2368. CRs in 051, 052 and 053.
6.12 Proposed changes on 25.324
6.13 Proposed changes on 25.331
Revisions of R2-021693, R2-021694 and R2-021695 (RAN2#30):
R2-022045 Proposed CR 1505r1 to 25.331 [R'99] on Corrections to handling of IE "Cells for measurement" Ericsson
R2-022046 Proposed CR 1506r1 to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Corrections to handling of IE "Cells for measurement" Ericsson
R2-022047 Proposed CR 1507r1 to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Corrections to handling of IE "Cells for measurement" Ericsson
Discussion:
Decision: The three CRs were Agreed.
Revisions of R2-021690, R2-021691 and R2-021692 (RAN2#30):
R2-022048 Proposed CR 1502r1 to 25.331 [R'99] on UE behaviour when active set cells are not included in CELL_INFO_LIST Ericsson
R2-022049 Proposed CR 1503r1 to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on UE behaviour when active set cells are not included in CELL_INFO_LIST Ericsson
R2-022050 Proposed CR 1504r1 to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on UE behaviour when active set cells are not included in CELL_INFO_LIST Ericsson
Discussion: The text was moved to 8.4.0 and generalised.
Decision: The three CRs were Agreed.
Revisions of R2-021706, R2-021599 and R2-021600 (RAN2#30):
R2-022105 Proposed CR 1517r1 to 25.331 [R'99] on Unit of layer 3 filtering Motorola
R2-022106 Proposed CR 1518r1 to 25.331 [R'99] on Unit of layer 3 filtering Motorola
R2-022107 Proposed CR 1519r1 to 25.331 [R'99] on Unit of layer 3 filtering Motorola
Presented by Richard burbidge from Motorola.
Discussion:
Question: Why was the decision from the last meeting changed ?
Why are we proposing to filter the linear value (and not the logarithmic one) ? This is more consuming in processing. What is the added value for the system ?
For the RSCP, filtering linear values may be more appropriate. But the real consequences on the system are unclear.
The change in 8.6.7.2 is not clear.
Decision:
No agreement could be reached within RAN WG2. The two set of CRs (1517, 1518, 1519 from Ericsson, RAN2#30) and (1517r1, 1518r1 and 1519r1 from Motorola, RAN2#31), although exclusive, are technically correct and agreed within RAN WG2. The final choice will be left for the TSG RAN plenary.
Revisions of R2-021716, R2-021717 and R2-021718 (RAN2#30):
R2-021860 Proposed CR 1529r1 to 25.331 (R99) on UE behaviour upon reception of reconfiguration Siemens, Interdigital
R2-021861 Proposed CR 1530r1 to 25.331 (Rel-4 shadow) on UE behaviour upon reception of reconfiguration Siemens, Interdigital
R2-021862 Proposed CR 1531r1 to 25.331 (Rel-5 shadow) on UE behaviour upon reception of reconfiguration Siemens, Interdigital
Presented by Marin Hans. A note has been added.
Discussion:
Question: We may need activation time when we go from cell fach to cell dch.
The Cell fach to cell dch transition has to be excluded.
Answer: But the activation is relative to the cell where you are today. This would mean a change.
Comment: Then there are some effects on the system, in particular for high data rates.
There is no activation time, at least for the R’99 and Rel-4.
The note in the reconfiguration procedure is also valid for other cases. It should be in the general part instead.
Decision: Further modifications will change the position of the note. In R2-02 2226, R2-02 2227, and R2-02 2228 (CRs numbers become rev 2).
R2-022226 Proposed CR 1529r2 to 25.331 (R99) on UE behaviour upon reception of reconfiguration Siemens, Interdigital
R2-022227 Proposed CR 1530r2 to 25.331 (Rel-4 shadow) on UE behaviour upon reception of reconfiguration Siemens, Interdigital
R2-022228 Proposed CR 1531r2 to 25.331 (Rel-5 shadow) on UE behaviour upon reception of reconfiguration Siemens, Interdigital
Discussion:
Decision : The three CRs were agreed.
R2-022386 Proposed CR to 25.331 on Unsupported configuration Qualcomm
Presented by Francesco Grilli from Qualcomm.
Discussion:
Question: Why is there a should and not a shall ?
Answer: TO avoid mandating a change for the R’99 UE.
Comment: Does this really help T1 ?
This CR is linked with the LS R2-022206.
Decision:
Should for the R’99, shall for the Rel-4 and Rel-5.
CRs agreed into R2-022430, 02 2431 and 022432. CRs 1677, 1678 and 1679.
R2-022222 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Nested Cell Updates and SRNS Relocation Motorola
Presented by Ravi.
Agreed in R2-022369, R2-022370 and R2-022371. CRs in 1653, 1654 and 1655.
R2-021832 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Correction on Security during SRNS relocation Nortel Networks
R2-021833 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4] on Correction on Security during SRNS relocation Nortel Networks
R2-021834 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5] on Correction on Security during SRNS relocation Nortel Networks
Presented by Tania Godard from Nortel Networks.
Discussion:
Is it in line with the Stage 2 requirements ?
Question: Why can we not handover and keep the status as not started ? I.e. Start ciphering with the existing TM connection ?
Answer: Because you need to have the Count-C initialised by the Tamb.
Most of the changes are not related to SRNS relocation.
Decision: CRs will be updated into R2-022229, R2-022230 and R2-022231. CR numbers are 1549, 1550 and 1551.
R2-022229 Proposed CR 1549 to 25.331 [R'99] on Correction on Security during SRNS relocation Nortel Networks
R2-022230 Proposed CR 1550 to 25.331 [Rel-4] on Correction on Security during SRNS relocation Nortel Networks
R2-022231 Proposed CR 1551 to 25.331 [Rel-5] on Correction on Security during SRNS relocation Nortel Networks
Presented by Tania Godard from Nortel Networks.
Discussion:
Decision: The CRs were agreed.
R2-021867 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Padding of TM RLC mode messages NEC
R2-021868 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Padding of TM RLC mode messages NEC
R2-021869 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Padding of TM RLC mode messages NEC
Presented by Michael Roberts from NEC.
Discussion:
Decision: The change was felt as not required as this is in 12.1.
R2-022223 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Correction to configuration of CTCH occasions Motorola
R2-022224 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Correction to configuration of CTCH occasions Motorola
R2-022225 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Correction to configuration of CTCH occasions Motorola
Presented by Ban Al-Bakri from Motorola.
Discussion:
The change in 8.5.16 is felt as not required. The semantic description only repeats the tabular description. The specification seems clear.
Decision: We may come-back on it. The CRs are not agreed.
Following off-line comments, R2-022223 was revised into R2-022375.
R2-022375 Revised CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Correction to configuration of CTCH occasions Motorola
Presented by Ban Al-Bakri from Motorola.
Discussion:
Is this really a critical change ?
Decision:
The CR was not agreed.
R2-021873 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Coding of IE NC mode Siemens, T-Mobile
R2-021874 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Coding of IE NC mode Siemens, T-Mobile
R2-021875 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Coding of IE NC mode Siemens, T-Mobile
Discussion:
Decision: Agreed into R2-02 2232, R2-02 2233 and R2-02 2234. CR numbers in 1552, 1553 and 1554.
R2-021878 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Corrections to event 1C formula Qualcomm
R2-021879 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4] on Corrections to event 1C formula Qualcomm
R2-021880 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5] on Corrections to event 1C formula Qualcomm
Presented by Francesco Grilli from Qualcomm.
Discussion:
Question: How often does this happen for the UE ?
Answer: It is not clear, if this is the internal or the reported value which shall be used. In softer handover, half a dB difference happens quite often.
Question: Is this really an essential correction for the R’99 ? Also, does it not happen in other cases than 1c ?
Answer: Only the event 1c triggers the replacement of the cell. Also UTRAN is affected if it receives a measurement report without the indication of the active set which triggered it.
Comment: this is an implementation problem.
The accuracy in RAN4 for comparing the 2 cells is 1.5 dBs.
This is only one sub-functioning of 1c which is affected here.
The feature still works without this CR.
Decision: The CRs were not agreed.
R2-021884 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Clarification to filtered measurement quantities TTPCom
R2-021885 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Clarification to filtered measurement quantities TTPCom
R2-021886 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Clarification to filtered measurement quantities TTPCom
Presented by Will Powell from TTPCom.
Discussion:
A small group will be tasked to finalise the CR.
Decision:
Revised into R2-022235, R2-022236 and R2-022237. CR numbers in 1555, 1556 and 1557.
R2-022235 Proposed CR 1555 to 25.331 [R'99] on Clarification to filtered measurement quantities TTPCom
R2-022236 Proposed CR 1556 to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Clarification to filtered measurement quantities TTPCom
R2-022237 Proposed CR 1557 to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Clarification to filtered measurement quantities TTPCom
Presented by Will Powell from TTPCom.
Discussion:
An extra note was added.
Decision: The three CRs were agreed.
R2-021994 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Clarification of Intra Frequency Events TTPCom
R2-021888 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Clarification of Intra Frequency Events TTPCom
R2-021889 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Clarification of Intra Frequency Events TTPCom
Presented by Will Powell from TTPCom.
Discussion:
On point 1, Ericsson has a document on the same topic in R2-021981, attempted to solve the problem for the Rel-4 onwards (rather than removing the option).
On point 2, Is it really necessary at this stage ? A mobile implementer would read the whole section.
On point 3, agreement.
Decision: The correction for point 3 is considered as agreed and will be merged with the Ericsson CR.
R2-021981 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Inconsistency in triggering and reporting for events 1a, 1b, 1c, 1e and 1f Ericsson
R2-021982 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Inconsistency in triggering and reporting for events 1a, 1b, 1c, 1e and 1f Ericsson
R2-021983 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Inconsistency in triggering and reporting for events 1a, 1b, 1c, 1e and 1f Ericsson
Presented by Gert-Jan from Ericsson.
Discussion:
Question: Why are the R’99 and Rel-4 solutions different ?
Answer: So that the R’99 implementation is not impacted. It is still possible to have the same implementation between the R’99 and the Rel-4.
Decision:
The CR is merged with the point 3 of the TTPCom CR (R2-021994).
Revision numbers are R2-02 2238, R2-02 2239 and R2-02 2240. CR numbers are 1558, 1559 and 1560 (respectively for the R’99, Rel-4 and Rel-5 versions of the 25.331 CR).
R2-022238 Proposed CR 1558 to 25.331 [R'99] on Inconsistency in triggering and reporting for events 1a, 1b, 1c, 1e and 1f Ericsson and TTPCom
R2-022239 Proposed CR 1559 to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Inconsistency in triggering and reporting for events 1a, 1b, 1c, 1e and 1f Ericsson and TTPCom
R2-022240 Proposed CR 1560 to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Inconsistency in triggering and reporting for events 1a, 1b, 1c, 1e and 1f Ericsson and TTPCom
Presented by Gert-Jan van Lieshout from Ericsson.
Discussion:
Decision: The three CRs were agreed.
R2-021890 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Optional and Mandatory fields in Measurement Control TTPCom
R2-021891 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Optional and Mandatory fields in Measurement Control TTPCom
R2-021892 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Optional and Mandatory fields in Measurement Control TTPCom
Presented by Will Powell from TTPCom.
Discussion:
First issue (optionality): The idea is good but the resulting text is strange. The absence of the parameter should be stated instead.
Decision:
The CRs need to be re-phrased into R2-022241, R2-022242 and R2-022243. CR numbers in 1561, 1562 and 1563.
R2-022241 Proposed CR 1561 to 25.331 [R'99] on Optional and Mandatory fields in Measurement Control TTPCom
R2-022242 Proposed CR 1562 to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Optional and Mandatory fields in Measurement Control TTPCom
R2-022243 Proposed CR 1563 to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Optional and Mandatory fields in Measurement Control TTPCom
Presented by Will Powell from TTPCom. The old Cell Info list is used.
Discussion:
Only with the event based reporting the variable is not cleared.
Decision:
Agreed in Tdocs R2-02 2402, R2-02 2403 and R2-02 2404.
R2-021893 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Clarifications to Reporting Cell Status TTPCom
R2-021894 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Clarifications to Reporting Cell Status TTPCom
R2-021895 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Clarifications to Reporting Cell Status TTPCom
Presented by Will Powell from TTPCom.
Discussion:
It would be strange to report only the cells within the active set.
Also, when the cells for measurements are not included, this is not taken into account. This needs to be re-phrased to include it.
Also, there is a note with a ‘shall’ in it. It could be also introduced in the procedure text rather in section 10.
Decision: Revised with those comments.
Agreed into R2-022244, R2-022245 and R2-022246. CR numbers in 1564, 1565 and 1566.
R2-021995 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Clarification to minimum SF TTPCom
R2-021897 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Clarification to minimum SF TTPCom
R2-021898 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Clarification to minimum SF TTPCom
Presented by Will Powell from TTPCom.
Discussion:
Question: Any impact on the T1 specifications ?
Should it really go into RRC, or more into a RAN1 specification ? People implementing the L1 are not likely to read this text.
The note may be confusing: This is for the uplink only. In fact, this is already stated.
Decision:
We will have the two bullets without the note. Also, the tabular reference is not needed.
Agreed into R2-022247, R2-022248 and R2-022249. CR numbers in 1567, 1568 and 1569.
R2-021899 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Clarifications to inter-frequency measurements TTPCom
R2-021900 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Clarifications to inter-frequency measurements TTPCom
R2-021901 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Clarifications to inter-frequency measurements TTPCom
Presented by Will Powell from TTPCom.
Discussion:
Question: Motorola had comments on the Change 2. The change on the hard handover is rather important.
Answer: The current application to the inter-frequency measurements is confusing.
Ericsson: On issue 1, a similar sentence should be removed as well.
Also, the solution is in fact that when the measurement control for a given measurement identity, you resume this one.
Decision:
Revised into R2-022250, R2-022251 and R2-022252. CR numbers in 1570, 1571 and 1572.
R2-022250 Proposed CR 1570 to 25.331 [R'99] on Clarifications to inter-frequency measurements TTPCom
R2-022251 Proposed CR 1571 to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Clarifications to inter-frequency measurements TTPCom
R2-022252 Proposed CR 1572 to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Clarifications to inter-frequency measurements TTPCom
Presented by Will Powell from TTP Com.
Section 14.11.2 was also updated.
Discussion:
Why was the UTRA carrier RSSI removed ?
Decision: The three CRs were agreed.
R2-021904 Withdrawn CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Header compression context space allocation Siemens
R2-021905 Withdrawn CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Header compression context space allocation Siemens
R2-021906 Withdrawn CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Header compression context space allocation Siemens
This document was withdrawn before presentation.
Discussion:
Decision:
R2-022061 Problems with "SFN-SFN observed time difference" measurement Ericsson
Presented by Gert-Jan from Ericsson.
Discussion:
SFN-CFN is not applicable to cell fach.
SFN-SFN cannot be used for inter-frequency.
Are we forced to start ciphering before initiating the handover ?
Decision:
SFN SFN is used in rach reporting.
SFN CFN is used in cell dch state.
CRs are agreed into R2-022253, R2-022254 and R2-022255. CR numbers in 1573, 1574 and 1575.
Later on during the week, those CRs were merged with some Siemens CRs into R2-022392, R2-022416 and R2-2417.
R2-021907 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Clarification on SFN-SFN observed time difference type 1 Measurement Siemens
R2-021908 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Clarification on SFN-SFN observed time difference type 1 Measurement Siemens
R2-021909 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Clarification on SFN-SFN observed time difference type 1 Measurement Siemens
Discussion:
Reason for change is incorrect (SFN-SFN was meant).
The ASN.1 is a mandatory element, however the proposal is that it cannot be sent. This needs to be corrected.
Decision: After study of the Ericsson proposal (R2-022061), the Siemens proposal was withdrawn.
R2-021917 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Systematic sending of UTRAN MOBILITY INFORMATION by UTRAN NEC
R2-021918 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4] on Systematic sending of UTRAN MOBILITY INFORMATION by UTRAN NEC
R2-021919 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5] on Systematic sending of UTRAN MOBILITY INFORMATION by UTRAN NEC
Presented by Michael Roberts from NEC.
Discussion:
Is this an essential change ?
In 23.060, it is said than in RRC connected mode, the MS is informed of the RAI and the Cell Identity. Is this not enough ?
Decision: The CRs are Withdrawn.
R2-021921 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Compressed Mode configuration after fallback Nokia
R2-021922 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Compressed Mode configuration after fallback Nokia
R2-021923 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Compressed Mode configuration after fallback Nokia
Presented by Gairn Kalla from Nokia.
Discussion:
Question: Is there a test on the fallback with compressed mode ?
Answer: Probably not.
Decision: The understanding of this CR is correct, but there is no need to make a CR. Indeed, from a system point of view, it is rather difficult to do it in the other way around (from the network viewpoint).
R2-021926 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Ciphering when HO to UMTS of signalling only connection Lucent Technologies
R2-021927 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Ciphering when HO to UMTS of signalling only connection Lucent Technologies
R2-021928 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Ciphering when HO to UMTS of signalling only connection Lucent Technologies
Presented by David from Lucent Technologies.
Discussion:
Comment: Instead of deleting the sentence, we could extend it so that if the IE is not given, the CS domain shall be used.
Answer: The start value is the start-CS value.
Comment: But this may be valid for both. So there is room for misinterpretation.
Clarifying the missing exception may be better.
Decision:
Revised into R2-022256, R2-022257 and R2-022258. CR numbers in 1576, 1577 and 1578.
R2-022256 Proposed CR 1576 to 25.331 [R'99] on Ciphering when HO to UMTS of signalling only connection Lucent Technologies
R2-022257 Proposed CR 1577 to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Ciphering when HO to UMTS of signalling only connection Lucent Technologies
R2-022258 Proposed CR 1578 to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Ciphering when HO to UMTS of signalling only connection Lucent Technologies
Presented by Gordon from Lucent Technologies.
Discussion:
Decision: Postponed.
Later on, they were revised due to off-line discussions into:
R2-022424 Revised CR 1576r1 to 25.331 [R'99] on Ciphering when HO to UMTS of signalling only connection Lucent Technologies
R2-022425 Revised CR 1577r1 to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Ciphering when HO to UMTS of signalling only connection Lucent Technologies
R2-022426 Revised CR 1578r1 to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Ciphering when HO to UMTS of signalling only connection Lucent Technologies
Presented by Gordon from Motorola.
The CRs were agreed into R2-022447, 022448 and 02 2449.
R2-021935 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Inter RAT handover from UTRAN Ericsson
R2-021936 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Inter RAT handover from UTRAN Ericsson
R2-021937 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Inter RAT handover from UTRAN Ericsson
Presented by Himke van der Velde from Ericsson.
Discussion:
Decision:
Agreed into R2-022265, R2-022266 and R2-022267. CR numbers are 1579, 1580 and 1581.
R2-021943 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Corrections to security ASUSTeK
R2-021944 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Corrections to security ASUSTeK
R2-021945 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Corrections to security ASUSTeK
Discussion:
Comments: the assumption was that if you have decided not to apply ciphering for the cs domain, then you must not do it later.
Is the second bullet is an essential change ?
Sub-clause 8.6.3.4 (ciphering mode info). Is the change correct if the check is performed on both domains?
Answer: which status of which domain is checked here ? The status is invalid when both domains are not started.
Decision:
The third and fourth changes are kept.
Postponed. We will come-back on them.
Revisions in R2-022405, 2406 and 2407. CR numbers in 1668, 1669 and 1670.
R2-022405 Proposed CR 1668 to 25.331 [R'99] on Corrections to security ASUSTeK
R2-022406 Proposed CR 1669 to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Corrections to security ASUSTeK
R2-022407 Proposed CR 1670 to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Corrections to security ASUSTeK
Decision: The three CRs were Agreed. |
