UMTS Release 99 corrections continued:
==========
R2-021946 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Unsupported frequency info ASUSTeK
R2-021947 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Unsupported frequency info ASUSTeK
R2-021948 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Unsupported frequency info ASUSTeK
Discussion:
Comment: This relates to the LS from T1. There is no need for a CR on this.
Any kind of combination violating the UE capability will make the UE send a failure message. But should we really specify every single case on a per UE class basis ?
Comment: But for this particular case, it would be interesting to include this particular case. T1 has already included it.
Comment: This in not an essential correction.
Decision: The CRs are rejected.
R2-021952 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Correction to Cell Update procedure with cause Radio link failure ASUSTeK
R2-021953 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Correction to Cell Update procedure with cause Radio link failure ASUSTeK
R2-021954 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Correction to Cell Update procedure with cause Radio link failure ASUSTeK
Discussion:
Question: Why was the UE capability sent in this way ?
Answer: In case you span an RNC boundary.
Decision:
Agreed into R2-02 2259, R2-02 2260 and R2-02 2261. CR numbers in 1582, 1583 and 1584.
R2-021955 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Correction to the handling of IE "UTRAN DRX cycle length coefficient" in CELL/URA UPDATE procedure ASUSTeK
R2-021956 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Correction to the handling of IE "UTRAN DRX cycle length coefficient" in CELL/URA UPDATE procedure ASUSTeK
R2-021957 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Correction to the handling of IE "UTRAN DRX cycle length coefficient" in CELL/URA UPDATE procedure ASUSTeK
Discussion:
Decision:
Agreed into R2-02 2262, R2-02 2263 and R2-02 2264. CR numbers in 1585, 1586 and 1587.
R2-021958 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Correction to RLC unrecoverable error in CELL_DCH state ASUSTeK
R2-021959 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Correction to RLC unrecoverable error in CELL_DCH state ASUSTeK
R2-021960 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Correction to RLC unrecoverable error in CELL_DCH state ASUSTeK
Discussion:
Decision: Item 3 only is needed.
A part of bullets 3 and 4 are needed.
1 and 2 are not needed.
Revised into R2-02 2268, R2-02 2269 and R2-02 2270. CR numbers in 1588, 1589 and 1590.
R2-022268 Proposed CR 1588 to 25.331 [R'99] on Correction to RLC unrecoverable error in CELL_DCH state ASUSTeK
R2-022269 Proposed CR 1589 to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Correction to RLC unrecoverable error in CELL_DCH state ASUSTeK
R2-022270 Proposed 1590 CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Correction to RLC unrecoverable error in CELL_DCH state ASUSTeK
Discussion:
Decision: The three CRs were agreed.
R2-021975 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Use of scrambling change when activating CM pattern using SF/2 by MEASUREMENT CONTROL Ericsson
R2-021976 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Use of scrambling change when activating CM pattern using SF/2 by MEASUREMENT CONTROL Ericsson
R2-021977 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Use of scrambling change when activating CM pattern using SF/2 by MEASUREMENT CONTROL Ericsson
Discussion:
Decision:
Agreed into R2-02 2271, R2-02 2272 and R2-02 2273. CR numbers in 1591, 1592 and 1593.
R2-021978 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Actions when optional IE "Maximum allowed UL TX power" is missing Ericsson
R2-021979 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Actions when optional IE "Maximum allowed UL TX power" is missing Ericsson
R2-021980 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Actions when optional IE "Maximum allowed UL TX power" is missing Ericsson
Discussion:
Decision:
Agreed into R2-02 2274, R2-02 2275 and R2-02 2276. CR numbers in 1594, 1595 and 1596.
R2-021987 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on IP_offset correction Ericsson
R2-021988 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on IP_offset correction Ericsson
R2-021989 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on IP_offset correction Ericsson
Discussion:
Decision:
Revised into R2-02 2277, R2-02 2278 and R2-02 2279. CR numbers in 1597, 1598 and 1599.
Later on during the week, RAN WG3 took some decisions that affected those CRs, so they were revised again into R2-02 2419, R2-02 2420 and R2-02 2421.
R2-022419 Proposed CR 1597r1 to 25.331 [R'99] on IP_offset correction Ericsson
R2-022420 Proposed CR 1598r1 to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on IP_offset correction Ericsson
R2-022421 Proposed CR 1599r1 to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on IP_offset correction Ericsson
Those CRs were Agreed.
R2-021999 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Initiation and updating of virtual active set ASUSTeK
R2-022000 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Initiation and updating of virtual active set ASUSTeK
R2-022001 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Initiation and updating of virtual active set ASUSTeK
Presented by Rex Chen from ASUSTeK.
Discussion:
Bullet 1, 2 and 3: not needed.
Bullet 4 (re-initialising): Not really needed (extra requirement).
Is the second large change in 14.11.1 needed ?
Decision: The CRs were withdrawn.
R2-022014 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Clarification on the IE "Frequency Info" Nortel
R2-022015 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Clarification on the IE "Frequency info" Nortel
R2-022016 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Clarification on the IE "Frequency info" Nortel
Presented by Claudio from Nortel Networks.
Only the UE supporting the 1900 frequency are impacted.
The Rel-5 CR is different because of UMTS 1800.
Discussion:
Comment: should it not refer 25.101 instead ? The bands have no meaning for RRC.
Answer: Yes, this is cleaner.
Comment: We need in fact to clarify the use of the semantics (e.g. default value).
Consequence if not approved will be clarified.
Decision:
Agreed into R2-02 2280, R2-02 2281 and R2-02 2282. CR numbers in 1600, 1601 and 1602
R2-022018 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on SRNS relocation with integrity Alcatel
R2-022019 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on SRNS relocation with integrity Alcatel
R2-022020 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on SRNS relocation with integrity Alcatel
Presented by Patrick Fischer from Alcatel. The corresponding CRs in RAN3 have been written.
Discussion: This appears more like an optimisation.
Question: How does it work for the inter-RAT handover from UTRAN case ?
RAN3 should be involved in the discussion.
We should keep the R’99 simple.
Question: The source RNC can only start building the handover commend when it receives the information from the target RNC. So can you really send the NAS message ?
Answer: Yes, you can. The UE knows it is a new integrity protection calculation.
Solutions (regardless of the release) could be:
- The fresh and the length could be given in the Iu instead.
The source RNC could calculate the RNI. RLC needs to be aligned on the MAC algorithm side, but not on the RNC version.
- Or the target RNC does the calculation (as in the UE not involved case).
- Or we keep it as it is.
Decision:
The new introduced container should be optional.
CRs are Revised in 02 2409 2410 and 2411. CRs in 1671, 1672 and 1673.
R2-022409 Proposed CR 1671 to 25.331 [R'99] on SRNS relocation with integrity Alcatel
R2-022410 Proposed CR 1672 to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on SRNS relocation with integrity Alcatel
R2-022411 Proposed CR 1673 to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on SRNS relocation with integrity Alcatel
Presented by Patrick Fischer from Alcatel.
The solution is now that in the target to source RNC container, there is an octet string with variable length. The target RNC knows to use the new or old method, depending on the presence of the field.
Changes on changes should disappear.
The R’99 CR only needs to be revised, into tdoc 02 2433. The three CRs (R2-022433, R2-022410 and R2-022411) are agreed.
R2-022026 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Handover corrections Qualcomm
R2-022027 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Handover corrections Qualcomm
R2-022028 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Handover corrections Qualcomm
Presented by Francesco Grilli from Qualcomm.
Discussion:
Comment: What is a “logical association”. This is used with many different understandings in the specifications.
Is this change in line with the Ericsson CR ?
The new proposed text in 8.2.2.3 may be misleading.
8.6.6.1 (frequency info): This is a new requirement on the UE.
Decision:
We will come-back on it.
After off-line discussions, a revision was made and provided into tdoc R2-022418.
R2-022418 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Handover corrections Qualcomm
Presented by Francesco Grilli from Qualcomm.
Discussion:
Decision:
Agreed in CRs 1680, 1681 and 1682.
Tdocs are R2-02 2434, R2-022435 and R2-022436.
R2-022029 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Correction of RNTI used in PUSCH capacity request and physical shared channel allocation request IPWIreless
R2-022030 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Correction of RNTI used in PUSCH capacity request and physical shared channel allocation request IPWIreless
R2-022031 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Correction of RNTI used in PUSCH capacity request and physical shared channel allocation request IPWIreless
Discussion:
Decision:
Agreed into R2-02 2283, R2-02 2284 and R2-02 2285. CR numbers in 1603, 1604 and 1605.
R2-022032 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Removal of incorrect semantic description from RB mapping info IPWIreless
R2-022033 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Removal of incorrect semantic description from RB mapping info IPWIreless
R2-022034 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Removal of incorrect semantic description from RB mapping info IPWIreless
Discussion:
Decision:
Revised into R2-02 2286, R2-02 2287 and R2-02 2288. CR numbers in 1606, 1607 and 1608.
R2-022286 Proposed CR 1606 to 25.331 [R'99] on Correction to allowed logical channel list choice for RACH transport channels IPWIreless
R2-022287 Proposed CR 1607 to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Correction to allowed logical channel list choice for RACH transport channels IPWIreless
R2-022288 Proposed CR 1608 to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Correction to allowed logical channel list choice for RACH transport channels IPWIreless
Those CRs were agreed.
R2-022038 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on SRNS relocation containers corrections Alcatel
R2-022039 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on SRNS relocation containers corrections Alcatel
R2-022040 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on SRNS relocation containers corrections Alcatel
Presented by Patrick Fischer from Alcatel.
Discussion:
Question: What if you have multiple ongoing RRC procedures (multiple transactions) ? You have only one flag.
Is intereporability fulfilled with this solution ? What if one of the RNC has not implemented this change ? This should be stated in the reason for change.
Decision: The flag will be added (a value to the enumerated).
Agreed into R2-02 2289, R2-02 2290 and R2-02 2291. CR numbers in 1609, 1610 and 1611.
R2-022138 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Clarification on SRNS Relocation Info Fujitsu Ltd
R2-022139 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Clarification on SRNS Relocation Info Fujitsu Ltd
R2-022140 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Clarification on SRNS Relocation Info Fujitsu Ltd
Presented by Sakai Masashi from Fujitsu.
The intention is to align the ASN.1 with the tabular description.
Discussion:
Do we recognise the problem ?
- Await RB release complete. When is it sent ?
Answer: When the UE goes to cell fach, the UE needs to make a cell reselection.
Question: Was the solution on the Iu checked ?
Decision: Merged with the Alcatel CR.
R2-022042 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on DCH quality target Ericsson
R2-022043 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on DCH quality target Ericsson
R2-022044 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on DCH quality target Ericsson
Discussion:
Decision:
Agreed into R2-02 2292, R2-02 2293 and R2-02 2294. CR numbers in 1612, 1613 and 1614.
R2-022054 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Handling of variables CELL_INFO_LIST and MEASUREMENT_IDENTITY(2) Ericsson
R2-022055 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Handling of variables CELL_INFO_LIST and MEASUREMENT_IDENTITY(2) Ericsson
R2-022056 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Handling of variables CELL_INFO_LIST and MEASUREMENT_IDENTITY(2) Ericsson
Presented by Gert-Jan from Ericsson.
Discussion:
Decision:
Revised in R2-02 2295, R2-02 2296 and R2-02 2297. CR numbers in 1615, 1616 and 1617.
R2-022295 Proposed CR 1615 to 25.331 [R'99] on Handling of variables CELL_INFO_LIST and MEASUREMENT_IDENTITY(2) Motorola
R2-022296 Proposed CR 1616 to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Handling of variables CELL_INFO_LIST and MEASUREMENT_IDENTITY(2) Motorola
R2-022297 Proposed CR 1617 to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Handling of variables CELL_INFO_LIST and MEASUREMENT_IDENTITY(2) Motorola
An email approval was decided, by Wednesday night pacific time.
R2-022057 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Alignment of reference configurations on S-CCPCH with default system information messages Ericsson
R2-022058 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Alignment of reference configurations on S-CCPCH with default system information messages Ericsson
R2-022059 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Alignment of reference configurations on S-CCPCH with default system information messages Ericsson
Presented by Gert-Jan from Ericssson.
Discussion:
Decision:
Were agreed into in R2-02 2298, R2-02 2299 and R2-02 2300. CR numbers in 1618, 1619 and 1620.
However, later on during the week those CRs were further revised (revision numbers increased) to be merged with some Siemens contributions, which resulted into tdocs R2-022389, R2-022390 and R2-022391 (agreed).
R2-022072 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on RRC TVM Corrections Qualcomm
R2-022073 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on RRC TVM Corrections Qualcomm
R2-022074 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on RRC TVM Corrections Qualcomm
Presented by Hector from Qualcomm.
Discussion:
The note is not needed.
Could the IE have different values for different events ?
Decision:
Agreed into in R2-02 2301, R2-02 2302 and R2-02 2303. CR numbers in 1621, 1622 and 1623.
R2-022087 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Introduction of the definition of the term "Active Set" to 25.331 Philips
R2-022088 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4] on Introduction of the definition of the term "Active Set" to 25.331 Philips
R2-022089 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5] on Introduction of the definition of the term "Active Set" to 25.331 Philips
Presented by Christoph Hermann.
Discussion: Reflects the change in R2-022151.
Decision: The change was felt as not needed.
R2-022093 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on Alignment of the handling of ciphering for SRBs between Handover to UTRAN and 3G to 3G SRNS Relocation Nortel Networks
R2-022094 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on Alignment of the handling of ciphering for SRBs between Handover to UTRAN and 3G to 3G SRNS Relocation Nortel Networks
R2-022095 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on Alignment of the handling of ciphering for SRBs between Handover to UTRAN and 3G to 3G SRNS Relocation Nortel Networks
Discussion: The author widthrew the proposal.
Decision: CRs withdrawn.
R2-022099 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on the Introduction of spare values to be utilised for handling problems with early mobiles Motorola
R2-022100 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4 shadow] on the Introduction of spare values to be utilised for handling problems with early mobiles Motorola
R2-022101 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5 shadow] on the Introduction of spare values to be utilised for handling problems with early mobiles Motorola
Presented by Richard from Motorola.
Those CRs introduce those bits in the R’99, before that we close the Rel-4.
The proposal is for RAN2 to technically endorse those CRs, as the final decision has to be taken at the RAN plenary.
Discussion:
Comment: Why have 16 spare values been chosen ?
Comment: What would the shadow Rel-4 CR look like ? How would a Rel-4 mobile set those bits ? A Rel-4 mobile may not have the problems. We may have only one bit in the Rel-4 (onwards).
Question: Can the bits be updated over the air ?
Answer: No.
Question: Why is it not in the RRC Connection request ? This is available earlier.
Answer: Because it is more difficult to find room there, although a couple of bits may be put there.
Question: When does UTRAN starts sending dedicated messages to the mobile ? We need to know that.
Comment: If the problem happens, then even the RRC Connection setup may be problematic to early mobiles. So it would be useful to have it in the RRC Connection Request.
Decision: The CRs are not needed until the Rel-4 is totally frozen, hence the meeting decided not to present those CRs to the RAN plenary.
R2-022102 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R'99] on UE behaviour following PDCP reconfiguration Motorola
R2-022103 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-4] on UE behaviour following PDCP reconfiguration Motorola
R2-022104 Proposed CR to 25.331 [Rel-5] on UE behaviour following PDCP reconfiguration Motorola
Presented by Richard from Motorola.
Discussion:
Comment: Don’t we loose all the PDUs that are in the buffer ?
Answer: An alternative for the R’99 would be to say that if any of those configurations happen the mobile behaviour is not specified.
Comment: What is the exact problem with the current situation ? We need to see some analysis of the problems created by some combinations.
Decision:
The CRs were not agreed. |
