3gpp2 tsg-c wg 2 swg 3 meeting #40 Meeting Summary

CHAIR: Ragulan Sinnarajah (Qualcomm Inc.)

VICE CHAIR: Orlett Pearson (Lucent Technologies)

VICE CHAIR: Purva Rajkotia (Samsung)

DATES: September 9-13, 2002

LOCATION: Cheju, Korea

1. 
   Call to Order
   
2. 
   Attendance Registration
   

3. 
   Review and Approval of Agenda. Approved.
   
4. 
   Introduce Contributions, Number and Assign to Agenda Items
   
5. 
   Review and Approval of Meeting Summaries. C23-20020805-002 – approved.
   

More time required by the participating companies to evaluate and address the contribution. Response will be provided during the October meeting.

More time required by the participating companies to address and evaluate the contribution. Response will be provided during the October meeting.

Orlett Pearson (Lucent) and Purva R. Rajkotia (Samsung) are going to address the items stated and their correspondence to the release of the air interface standards in the program-management spread sheet by the next October meeting. Interested parties are encouraged to work on this item.

An Ad-hoc group consisting of David Comstock (Ericcson), Purva R.Rajkotia (Samsung), Ke-Chi Jang (Nortel) and Aziz Gholmieh (Qualcomm) was formed to address the contribution. Correspondence was drafted to address the security issues, which was forwarded to WG2 for approval. (C20-20020909 – 102)

6. 
   Correspondence
   

C23-20020909-009/009A -Open

The documents, which were presented along with the contribution, will be used as a reference in the future release of the air interface standards. Companies are encouraged to review the documents and if further questions/concerns to bring them during the next face-to-face meeting in October.
C23-20020909-010_TSG-A_Liaison_to_TSG-P_Mux_Options – Open

The correspondence will be addressed during the next face-to-face meeting in October. During the meantime there will be a joint conference call with SWG2.1 to discuss the contribution in details. The date and the time of the joint call will be sent out sometimes next week.

7. 
   Old Business.
   
   1. 
      Broadcast Services
      

1. 
   How do we handle the transition between the different physical channels? What is the impact on the overall system performance?
   
2. 
   Can more details be provided regarding the signaling portion of the contribution?
   
3. 
   VIA Telecom pointed out that with the Lucent approach, there will be not a major work in TSG-C, signaling group, as the architecture is more application layer-centric.
   
4. 
   Lucent made a comment that the architecture they have provided is independent of the access network interface – can be extended beyond cdma2000 (e.g.: 802.11b, Blue Tooth etc).
   
5. 
   Lucent also suggested that their architecture is more beneficial to operator as the architecture is not pre-configured as Qualcomm’s proposal, which Qualcomm had some reservations on. Qualcomm suggested that even their proposal could be used to handle user on-demand configuration.
   
6. 
   Qualcomm suggested viewing the Lucent contribution as a complement to their proposal and not as an alternative.
   

Qualcomm took an action item to address the questions and the contribution addressing the concerns raised will be presented during the next meeting.

Contribution stirred discussions. Few questions/comments regarding the contribution are listed below:

1. 
   Lucent wanted to understand the operation of this particular contribution in a scenario when the mobile is simultaneously receiving voice and data (in other words the mobile is not in the idle state). Ericsson commented that this particular contribution only addresses the idle state design operation.
   
2. 
   Lucent stated that the contribution couldn’t be used in the form it was, might require some modifications or tuning.
   
3. 
   Nokia wanted to understand the differences of the timer values listed and its relation to the Qualcomm proposal. Ericsson did address that question.
   
4. 
   VIA Telecom wanted to know the impact of the suggested idea might have on the periodicity of BSPM on the paging channel. VIA also commented that it might affect the battery life of the mobile.
   
5. 
   Samsung, based on the understanding of the proposal, proposed that the benefits of the technique suggested in this contribution might not be significant. Though they do acknowledge the problem, but suggested there can be other ways of handling it.
   
6. 
   Lucent suggested that there would be significant reduction in capacity with this proposal since a Broadcast service could be activated in a cell where there is no demand for it. Ericsson did agree that a service could be activated in a cell where there is not demand, however, the intent of their proposal is to try to minimize the number of cells where a service is activated while still providing continuity of service as the mobile moves. Ericsson did agree that there will be an impact on the capacity if there are very few users, but the design was based on the assumption that there will be large number of users, trying to use the BC/MC services.
   

8. 
   New Business.
   

VIA Telecom suggested that this proposal would change the complete logic of the way messages are executed in the current system design.

Lucent suggested that the timer value was too large a value.

Qualcomm suggested that the companies take this contribution with them and discuss it within the company regarding the nature of the problem.

Contribution was kept open.
C23-20020909-005_LGE-Addendum – Chanho Kyung from LGE presented this contribution. LGE has pointed out some errors in the current Rel. C standards. Group decided to keep the contribution open and companies were encouraged that if during the development phase if flaws are detected in the standards to bring in the flaws, which will be appended to the LGE’s contribution. Working Group 2 chair suggested that the technical flaws which were brought in will be discussed and the group/sub working groups will determine the severity and nature of flaws. If the flaws are technical and very severe, then the items will be forwarded to the plenary for further actions.
C23-20020909-006_ETSI_BRAN_interworking_liaison – SWG2.3 would like to have the operator’s communities’ feedback on their desire of having the handoff support between the wireless LAN network and the current systems before the group officially sends the response.

Contribution is kept open.

9. 
   Reports.
   
10. 
    Assignments.
    
11. 
    Future Meeting Schedule. October 21- 25, 2002.
    
12. 
    Adjournment. September 12, 2002. Around 2:00 PM.