Release 99 corrections - 34th TSG-RAN WG2 meeting (Sophia-Antipolis, France, 17-21 February 2003)
==========
6 Corrections on Release '99
6.1 Incoming LSs on Release '99
Liaisons on Rel-4 are captured under Agenda Item 8.1, liaisons on Rel-5 under Agenda Item 9.1 and liaisons on Rel-6 under Agenda Item 10.1.
6.1.1 TSG-RAN WG1
R2-030355 (R1-030199, cc RAN WG2). Verification of the L1 parameters of the RAB configuration used for RLC testing. (Reply LS on applicability of the RAB configuration used for RLC testing). RAN WG1
This LS was presented by Himke van der Velde from Ericsson.
Discussion:
Decision: The LS was noted.
R2-030612 (R1-030363, cc RAN WG2). Reply to LS Compressed Mode Code Reuse. RAN WG1
This LS was presented by Gert-Jan from Ericsson.
Discussion:
The last action impacts RAN WG2.
Decision: The LS was noted.
6.1.2 TSG-RAN WG3
R2-030358 (R3-022603, cc RAN WG2). Clarification on “Guaranteed Bit Rate in RANAP”. Reply LS on Maximum Rate Control and Guaranteed bit rate RAN WG3
This LS was presented by Tania Godard from Nortel.
Discussion:
Decision: The LS was noted.
6.1.3 TSG-RAN WG4
6.1.4 TSG-SA and TSG-SA WGs
R2-030361 (S1-030247, from SA WG1, cc RAN WG2). LS on R’99 and later Emergency calls in case on UE attached to data only network. SA WG1
This LS was presented by Juha Mikola from Nokia.
Discussion:
Decision: The LS was noted.
R2-030362 (S2-023489, from SA WG2, to RAN WG2). Reply Liaison Statement on Maximum Rate Control and Guaranteed bit rate. SA WG2
This LS was presented by Tania Godard from Nortel.
Discussion:
Decision: The LS noted.
R2-030368 (S4-030089, from SA WG4, cc RAN WG2). Liaison Statement on Maximum Bit and Guaranteed Bit Rates SA WG4
This LS was presented by Tania Godard from Nortel.
Discussion:
Decision:
R2-030363 (S2-023664, from SA WG2, to RAN WG2). LS on Early UE handling SA WG2
This LS was presented by Tim Frost from Vodafone.
Discussion:
The USBI could be added in the paging message as a potential solution.
It was commented that the paging mechanism is not always a trivial procedure.
Decision: The LS was noted.
R2-030369 (S4-030091, from SA WG4, to RAN WG2). Reply to LS on Rate Adaptation of AMR Codec SA WG4
This LS was presented by Claudiu Mihailescu from Nortel.
Discussion:
There is no action for RAN WG2.
There seems to be a misunderstanding in the LS.
SA4 does not have requirements in their own specs for the switching time. RAN4 will liaise with SA4.
Decision: The LS was noted.
6.1.5 TSG-CN and TSG-CN WGs
R2-030392 (N1-030262, to RAN WG2). LS on Missed Paging due to UE and Network RRC State out of synchronisation CN WG1
This LS was presented by Richard Burbidge from Motorola.
There are associated documents, e.g. R2-030225.
Discussion:
Decision: We will come-back on it this week. The LS was noted.
R2-030399 (N1-030201, cc RAN2). LS on LS on Early UE Handling CN1
This LS was presented by the chairman.
Discussion:
Decision: The LS was noted.
R2-030357 (N4-021498, cc RAN WG2). Reply LS on Maximum Rate Control and Guaranteed bit rate CN WG4
This LS was presented by Tania Godard from Nortel.
Discussion:
Decision: The LS was noted.
R2-030420 (N1-030302, cc TSG-RAN WG2) Reply to LS (S1-030247) on R99 and later emergency calls when attached to data only network CN WG1
This LS was presented by Juha Mikola from Nokia.
Discussion:
No issue is foreseen so far.
Decision: The LS was noted.
6.1.5 TSG-T and TSG-T WGs
R2-030398 (T1R030072, from T1(RF), to RAN WG2). LS on removal of uplink dummy DCCH transmission T1(RF)
This LS was presented by Masato Kitazoe from Panasonic.
Discussion:
Decision: The content of the CRs are agreed. The CRs will be re-written on the new versions.
New CRs on 34.109 (Removal of uplink dummy DCCH transmission function in UE.).Tdoc numbers: R2-030428, R2-030429 and R2-030430. CR numbers: 023, 024 and 025 (for the R’99, Rel-4 and Rel-5).
R2-030460 (T1030226, cc RAN WG2). Reply to LS on requirement to test non-transmission of newly defined IEs in RRC protocol for Early UE handling T1
This LS was presented by Richard Burbidge from Motorola.
Discussion:
Decision: The LS was noted.
R2-030461 (T1030232, to RAN WG2). Response LS on proposed RAB configuration used for RLC testing T1
This LS was presented by Himke van der Velde from Ericsson.
Discussion:
Decision: The LS was noted.
6.1.7 TSG-GERAN and TSG-GERAN WGs
R2-030352 (GP-023369, to RAN WG2). LS on Architectural Impacts of Early UE Handling. GERAN
This LS was presented by Juho Pirskasen from Nokia.
Discussion:
RAN3 has also some expertise for checking, as some IEs are on the Iu.
Decision: The LS was noted.
R2-030353 (GP-030372, to RAN WG2). Reply LS on R’99 and later Emergency calls in case of UE attached to data only network. GERAN
This LS was presented by Luis Barreto from Nokia.
Discussion:
Decision: The LS was noted.
6.1.8 ITU-R Ad-hoc
R2-030384 (RT-030005, to RAN WG2). LS on Initial submission for updated UTRA FDD and TDD toward Rev. 4 of Rec. ITU-R M.1457 ITU-R Ad Hoc
This LS was presented by Andrea Buldorini from Tilab.
Discussion:
Decision: Tilab will provide an LS including the rationale on MBMS, in R2-030422.
6.2 General decisions
R2-030255 Ciphering, HFN roll over, and TTI boundary NTT DoCoMo
This document was presented by Kota Fujimura from NTT DoCoMo.
Discussion:
R2-030255 was studied in conjunction.
Decision: The document was noted.
R2-030180 Ciphering and HFN roll over Nortel
This document was presented by Tania Godard from Nortel.
Discussion:
Comment: The proposal A2 seems to violate the proposal of the Count-C.
Answer: There is only one Count-C per SFN.
Comment: Why would proposal B not be adequate ? Is it not a matter of standardisation ?
Answer: Then, this would be a reworded proposal D.
Comment: We cannot just use 80 ms for the granularity, as the other requirements could not be fulfilled in some scenarios.
Comment: We could avoid to wait for the 80ms. Why requiring it ? It could also work at the TTI boundary. The only case when it does not work today is when we have a different highest TTI for the uplink and downlink.
Answer: What are the scenarios, apart the hard handover ?
This will be clarified for the R’99 with a “should”, and with a “shall” for the Rel-4.
The longest TTI for uplink and downlink could be used instead of the 80 ms (Proposal B updated).
Where is the start of the HFN increment defined today ? In RRC.
One company mentioned that the proposal C (updated to 20ms) may be simpler.
Another company mentioned that with the solution A2, all combinations can be signalled (and the network adjusts).
It was mentined that solutions A2 and B are not compatible, hence solution C (or C updated) seems to be the only way forward. Also, if the HFN is off by one, there is no recovery.
Two companies had concerns with solution A2, one company had concerns with solution B.
Decision: Nortel will provide a proposed Change Request.
R2-030225 Autonomous transition to idle mode Siemens
This document was presented by Joerg Schniedenharn from Siemens.
Discussion:
Comment: If the Paging request happened during T316 and there is an attempt to release the Iu and the UE comes-back to the initial cell, the problem is not solved.
This is up to the RNC implementation. There are a few ways to maximise the probability to receive the paging (described in the Siemens paper).
Decision: We will come-back on it.
Later-on, it was still thought that there may ambiguities created in RRC if the Iu connection is released. 3 voluntereed to provide a discussion document on this.
The document was noted.
R2-030273 Problems for paging due to local release of the UE RRC connection NEC
This document was presented by Michael Roberts from NEC.
Discussion:
Decision: We will come-back on it.
See discussions in R2-030225.
The document was noted.
R2-030375 NAS and Integrity procedure interaction in R99 NEC 6 2
This document was presented by Michael Roberts from NEC.
Discussion:
A few possible fixes in the UE could be documented.
Decision: We will come-back on it. A CRs with the solution in a note will be proposed in R2-030431.
R2-030431 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R99] on NAS and integrity procedure interaction NEC
This document was presented by Michael Roberts from NEC.
Discussion:
What are the negative consequences if we specify that the UE shall not discard the message ?
We could have a “should” for the R’99 (and a “shall” for the Rel-4 onwards). But a description paper is needed.
The issue is in the downlink. The message could be stored until the “ack” is received. But this needs to be checked.
Decision: The document was noted. We will come-back on it. Later on, it was decided to have a “UE should” for the R’99 (“shall” for later releases). A CR will be provided in R2-030572. CR number 1881.
R2-030572 Proposed CR 1881 to 25.331 [R99] on NAS and integrity procedure interaction Qualcomm
This document was presented by francesco Grilli from Qualcomm.
Discussion:
Decision: Will be subject to an email agreement. Shadows will be provided in R2-030618 and R2-030619. CR numbers 1901 and 1902 (Rel-4 and Rel-5 “shadows”).
R2-030382 Start time of Security for RB3 in R99 NEC
This document was presented by Michael Roberts from NEC.
Discussion:
The intention is to wait for ciphering synchronisation and then to cipher all the RABs.
A sentence could say that SN+1 should be used (using a should for the R’99 and a shall for the Rel-4 onwards).
Decision: A CR will be provided in R2-030432.
R2-030432 Proposed CR to 25.331 [R99] on Start time of Security NEC
This document was presented by Michael Roberts from NEC.
Discussion:
Subclause 8.6.3.4: the sentence on the minimum delay needs to be re-written.
The “why” is not needed in the CR, only the “how”.
Decision: the CR was agreed into R2-030512, R2-030513 and R2-030514. CR numbers in 1869, 1870 and 1871.
R2-030386 Correction to penalty of cell reselection ASUSTeK
This document was presented by Rex Chen from ASUSTeK.
This document contains a proposed CR on 25.304.
Discussion:
No change is needed.
Decision: The document was noted.
R2-030606 PLMN search in CELL_FACH "out of service area" state Nortel Networks
This document was presented by Claudiu Mihailescu from Nortel Networks.
Discussion:
Comment: In 25.304, cell selection is for the NAS indicated PLMN.
Is a new PLMN selection needed or not ?
Decision: The document was noted. |
