TSGR1-02-0356
`
`-
`
`Secretary
`
`TSG-RAN Working Group 1 meeting No. 24
`February 18-22, Orlando, Florida, U.S.A.
`
`
`Agenda Item:
`
`Source:
`
`Title:
`
`Document for: Approval
`
`_________________________________________________________________________
`
`Revised Minutes for 3GPP TSG-RAN WG1 23rd Meeting
`
`Revised minutes of TSG RAN WG1 #23 meeting
`
`
`/***
`
` Following 2 points were revised in this revision.
`
`
`1) Page 15, Note (*7) , comments regarding R1-02-0066
`
`
`2) participants list
`***/
`
`Meeting start: January 8th, 2002, in Espoo, Finland
`
`Day 1, started at 10.07
`
`1. Opening of the meeting
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (10:07 - 10:11)
`The chairman, Mr. Antti Toskala (Nokia), opened the meeting and welcomed the delegates to the meeting on behalf of
`
`
`hosting company (Nokia).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Approval of agenda
` R1-02-0001 Agenda for TSG RAN WG1 meeting No.23
` Chairman made a brief introduction of the agenda on the screen.
` Agenda was approved with no comments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (10:12 - 10:17)
`
`- 1 -
`
`IPR2021-00908 Honeywell Exh. 1006 - Page 1 of 30
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`3. Rel'5 work items besides HSDPA
`
`3.1 Enhancement on the DSCH hard split mode
`
`
`No. Ad Hoc
`
`Tdoc
`
`Title
`
`Source
`
`Conclusion Notes
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`34
`
`R1-02-0052 Revision of TR 25.870 to version 1.1.1
`
`Samsung
`
`R1-02-0053
`
` CR 25.212-123r1 : Inclusion of flexible
` hard split mode TFCI operation
`
`Samsung
`
`Approved
`into v.1.2.0
`
`To be
`revised
`
`R1-02-0058
`
`R1-02-0063
`
`R1-02-0064
`
` The priority combinations for DSCH
` hard split mode
` Text proposal for clarification on Contents, Section
` 5.1, and Section 5.2 of TFCI power control in
` DSCH hard split mode in TR25.870
` Text proposal for clarification on Section 5.3 of
` TFCI power control in DSCH hard split mode in
` TR25.870
`
`R1-02-0065
`
` Backward compatibility and specification impacts of
` TFCI power control in the DSCH hard split mode
`
`R1-02-0127
`
` Response to LS on TFCI power control
` in hard split mode
`
`R2-02-0105 TR 25.870 V1.2.0
`
`Panasonic
`
`Noted
`
`LGE
`
`LGE
`
`LGE
`
`To be
`revised
`
`To be
`revised
`
`To be
`revised
`
`RAN WG3
`
`Noted
`
`LGE
`
`Approved
`into v1.3.0
`
`(*1)
`
`Day 1 10:28-10:31
`
`(*2)
`
`Day 1 10:32-10:45
`
`(*2)
`
`Day 1 10:46-10:59
`
`(*4)
`
`Day 1 11:34-11:44
`
`(*5)
`
`Day 1 11:44-12:08
`
`(*6)
`
`Day 1 12:08-12:34
`
`See
`No.17
`
`(*7)
`
`Day 4 16:48-16:51
`
`(*1) Mr. Yongjun Kwak (Samsung) presented this paper.
`
`
` This was the revision of TR 25.870 which contains some clarifications, editorial corrections onto the previous
`
`
` approved version(v1.1.0). There was no comment made for this revision.
`
`
` Chairman concluded that this revision was approved. The revision marks should be removed except those sections
`
`
` which contains the actual text proposals on the existing specifications. The version number will be raised to v1.2.0.
`
`
` TR 25.870 v1.2.0 was created in R1-02-0161 by Samsung but it was not reviewed during this meeting.
`
`
` Instead, R1-02-0105 which contains TR 25.870 v1.2.0 including revised text proposal on TFCI power control in DSCH
`
`
` hard split mode (this text proposal can be found in R1-02-0104.) was reviewed in conjunction with the LS (R1-02-0148)
`
`
` reviewal on Day4. The text proposal in R1-02-0104 was approved with no comments and as a result, R1-02-0105 was
`
`
` also approved without any comments. The final version number from this meeting was then raised to v1.3.0 which can
`
`
` be found in R1-02-0197 as an attachment of the liaison statement. (See No. 8, 130)
`
`(*2) Mr. Yongjun Kwak (Samsung) presented this paper.
`
`
` Chairman questioned whether it has been reflected in this CR that we are not supposed to have all of the combinations
`
`
` (all division patterns of bits) in our specification. Samsung answered that it was not reflected but they were ready to
`
`
` make a discussion on this issue. They said that they did not have any strong opinion this point.
`
`
` Mr. Hidetoshi Suzuki (Panasonic) pointed out that there was a UE capability CR that was going to be submitted in
`
`
` RAN WG2 in this week. (RAN WG2 was having its #26 meeting in parallel in Sophia Antipolis.) He said that if this
`
`
` hard split mode is optional feature then it would be a bit strange to have this discussion here. Mr. Dirk Gerstenberger
`
`
` (Ericsson) shared the view.
`
`
` Chairman requested Samsung to make that CR available here in RAN WG1 as well in the afternoon CD.
`
`
` Eventually this RAN WG2 CR was provided by Samsung in R1-02-0163 in Day4 morning CR.
`
`
` Mr. Dirk Gerstenberger commented as regards some editorial or notational issues.
`
`
` Chairman invited Mr. Dirk Gerstenberger to give his comments to the proponent offline then there the revision would
`
`
` be provided in our next meeting reflecting those comments.
`
`
` With respect to the discussion on the desirable combinations, there was a contribution from Panasonic in R1-02-0058
`
`
` and this was reviewed in succession.
`
`(*3) Mr. Hidetoshi Suzuki (Panasonic) presented this paper on the screen.
`
`
` This paper was discussing the importance of (1:9) (3:7) combinations. Several concerns regarding having the
`
`
` combination of (1:9) were expressed by Mr. Yannick Le Pezennec (Vodafone Group), Chairman,
`
`
` Mr. Dirk Gerstenberger (Ericsson) and Ms. Evelyne Le Strat (Nortel). The main opinion was that it would be enough
`
`
` if we have (5:5), (6:4) and (7:3) combinations.
`
`
` Having these comments, chairman concluded that we would have (5:5), (6:4) and (7:3) splits including reverse split
`
`
` combinations as a working assumption and not (1:9) Chairman suggested to the proponent (Samsung) to reflect this
`
`
` conclusion in the revision of the CR. The revised CR would be reviewed in RAN WG1#24 in Orlando.
`
`/*** Day1 coffee break 11:01-11:29 ***/
`
`(*4) LGE presented this paper.
`
`
` On accordance with the decision made in RAN WG#22 meeting in Jeju, in this document LGE provided revisions of
`
`
` the text proposal for TR 25.870 with respect to section 5.1 and 5.2. Some points as regards TFCI power control in
`
`
` DSCH hard split mode were clarified.
`
`
` There was one comment from Ms. Evelyne Le Strat (Nortel) saying that the very last sentence in section 5.1 was
`
`
` misleading and should be rewritten in more general way.
`
`- 2 -
`
`IPR2021-00908 Honeywell Exh. 1006 - Page 2 of 30
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

` There were no other comments made. Chairman suggested to the proponent to reflect this comment.
`
`
`(*5) LGE presented this paper.
`
`
` This was the sequel to the previous R1-01-0063. This particular paper (R1-02-0064) contained the revision for
`
`
` TR 25.870 with respect to section 5.3.
`
`
` Ms. Evelyne Le Strat (Nortel) remarked that she would like the general method proposed here however the way it is
`
`
` described in the TR was misleading and needs to be rewritten. She made a bit long comment on this paper on
`
`
` following 3 points.
`
`
`
`- On the mandatory/non mandatory behaviour of the RNC
`
`
`
`- On the power offsets description
`
`
`
`- On the simulation results
`
`
` She had distributed this comment including the comment for R1-02-0065 on the RAN WG1 e-mail reflector prior to
`
`
` the meeting. The written comment can be found there. (posted at Tue 08/01/2002 00:10)
`
`
` Chairman suggested to the proponent to revise the text proposal taking into account this comment.
`
`(*6) LGE presented this paper.
`
`
` In this paper the variable power offset for TFCI2 was proposed in order to allocated more power to TFCI2 bits.
`
`
` Also in this paper the backward compatibility issue was discussed. Text proposals were attached.
`
`
` There were several comments made.
`
`
`
`- We can simplify the method where no new parameter would be introduced so that there would be no backward
`
`
`
` compatibility issue.
`
`
`
`- What is the impact on the maximum power offset values UE experiences in the downlink ?
`
`
`
`- In R99 and Rel-4 UEs they expect that this power offset is fixed and it is certainly not supposed to go out of the
`
`
`
` bound that is currently defined in the specification. Therefore it could be an issue first of all whether we can apply
`
`
`
` this to R99 and Rel-4 UEs because it is potentially depending on the UE receiver implementation. UEs may very
`
`
`
` well be assuming that this power offset is always fixed and they may be using this knowledge for some estimation
`
`
`
` purposes.
`
`
`
`- If the range of this offset value is somehow significantly different from what is in R99 and Rel-4 then even if UEs
`
`
`
` are not using the knowledge, depending again on the implementation some UE might get problems if the dynamic
`
`
`
` range suddenly changes in a significant way. This kind of issue should be noted in the TR.
`
`
`
`- In general the release information (e.g. Rel-5) should not be mentioned in the TR because there is a possibility that
`
`
`
` WI steps over the later releases than expected….
`
`
`
`- etc.
`
`
` In the end chairman made suggestion to the proponent to revise this text proposal taking into account the comments
`
`
` received. The revision should be provided by Day4 so that we can revisit this topic on Day4. (See No. 8)
`
`/*** Day1 lunch break 12:36-13:40 ***/
`
`(*7) This was the revision of the TR 25.870 v1.2.0. LGE had revised this TR with Nortel according to the comments made
`
`
` in Day1. This TR was reviewed in conjunction with the reviewal of the LS R1-02-148 on Day4. (See No. 130)
`
`
` This revision was approved with no comments. The revision number will be v1.3.0
`
`
`3.2 Improvement of inter-frequency and intersystem measurements for 1.28 Mcps TDD
`
`
`No. Ad Hoc
`
`Tdoc
`
`Title
`
`Source
`
`Conclusion Notes
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`
`
`R1-02-0121
`
`R1-02-0099
`
` Revised draft TR 25.xxx on Improvement of Inter-
` frequency and inter-system measurement for
` 1.28Mcps TDD
` Improvement of monitoring FDD from
` 1.28Mcps TDD
`
`R1-02-0100
`
` Improvement of monitoring 3.84Mcps
` TDD from 1.28Mcps TDD
`
`R1-02-0101
`
` Improvement of monitoring 1.28Mcps
` TDD from 1.28Mcps TDD
`
`Samsung
`
`Samsung
`
`Samsung
`
`Samsung
`
`To be
`revised
`
`Postponed
`until scope
`and principles
`clarified.
`(TR needs to be
`agreed firstly.)
`
`(*1)
`
`Day 1 13:50-14:15
`
`(*2)
`
`Day 1 14:14-14:34
`
`(*3)
`
`Day 1 14:34-14:34
`
`(*3)
`
`Day 1 14:35-14:35
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(*1) Li Xiaoqiang (Samsung) presented this paper
`
` This paper contained a revised TR which was submitted in the RAN WG1#22 (R1-01-1317).
`
` In the revised TR, monitoring 1.28Mcps TDD from 1.28Mcps TDD was also included as one study area. And TR title
`
` was also changed to specify 1.28Mcps TDD.
`
` Ms. Sarah Boumendil (Nortel) made a remark on the scope of revised TR.
`
`
`In this revision we receive the impression that we are going to describe a method and impacts of the proposed method
`
`
`on the specification but we should first of all state that the problem has been identified with the current specifications
`
`
`and then proposed solution should be suggested to solve that problem. The problem should be clearly stated in the
`
`
`first place and then solutions should be described.
`
`
`The other problem with this TR was that we now have the description of the method from the layer 1 perspective
`
` while we do not know how this method is going to be configured by higher layers and how the mobile and Node B
`
` will receive the necessary information. There are definitely something needs to be clarified. We need information on
`
`
`exactly how these method is going to be used in the system.
`
` Chairman agreed with this comment and stated.
`
`- 3 -
`
`IPR2021-00908 Honeywell Exh. 1006 - Page 3 of 30
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`Eventually when this TR is submitted for RAN, they do not have any clue about any background discussion we have
`
`
`had in RAN WG1. We need to be consistent. We need to identify the problems and then possible solutions
`
`
`should be described with the explanation of how those solutions would improve the situations. So from the TR point
`
`
`of view the problem needs to be clearly described.
`
`
` As a best way forward chairman suggested following.
`
` At first the proponent should provide a kind of clean version of the TR with which everybody is happy with
`
`
`the scope and basic structure of the TR. And secondly we should discuss the text proposals in separate T-docs.
`
` Ms. Evelyne Le Strat (Nortel) added that we would not be ready to accept any text proposals describing a method if
`
` we have no confidence that there is no associated procedure in the higher layers to configure the same method.
`
` Finally chairman invited the proponent to provide clean version of the TR during this meeting so that we can review
`
` it in this meeting and we can send a LS to RAN WG2 and RAN WG3.
`
` R1-01-0149 was allocated for the revised TR. This was provided on the Day4 morning CD but eventually it was not
`
` reviewed during this meeting.
`
` (Official TR number had been allocated by MCC for this TR as TR 25.888)
`
`(*2) Samsung presented this paper.
`
` In this paper three channel re-assigning patterns for inter-system measurement were introduced which can be used for
`
` all inter-system measurement purposes. Also in this paper the two schemes for monitoring FDD, Channel re-assigning
`
` scheme and conventional scheme were compared.
`
` There was a comment from Nortel that the discussions on patterns would be useless unless the principle of the scheme
`
` is clarified.
`
` There was also a comment that the model in this scheme is not in line with the one in RAN WG4.
`
` Chairman agreed with these comments and suggested that the proponent should clarify the principle of this method
`
` first and only after that we can talk about the detailed structure.
`
` Chairman concluded that we would come back to this issue later after the proponent has provided the revision reflecting
`
` those comments received. He suggested we would discuss this issue again on Day4.
`
` (No discussion was held in this meeting eventually.)
`(*3) These 2 documents were not presented with the reason of the conclusion made with the previous papers. The proponent
`
` needs firstly to clarify the principles of the proposed scheme and have TR agreed by RAN WG1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.3 Support of SSDT in UTRAN
`
`
`No. Ad Hoc
`
`Tdoc
`
`Title
`
`Source
`
`Conclusion Notes
`
`13
`
`
`
`R1-02-0028 Quality threshold Qth in SSDT
`
`NEC, Fujitsu
`
`Postponed
`to Day4
`
`(*1)
`
`Day 1 14:39-15:09
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(*1) Ms. Nahoko Takano (NEC) presented this paper.
`
` In the RAN #14, new work item on "Support of Site Selection Diversity Transmission in UTRAN" was created in order
`
` to provide the necessary changes and additions required in the current RAN specifications to provide full support of
`
` SSDT in UTRAN including the definition of Qth parameter. On accordance with this background in this paper some
`
` solutions for Qth parameter-related issues were presented. Qth was defined as a relative value to uplink Target SIR.
`
` (Qth is set so that the maximum value of that is equal to the target SIR upper bound.)
`
` A short discussion was made about the simulation result in the Annex, e.g. what is the reference, what kind of signalling
`
` error has been assumed, etc.
`
` Chairman commented that the key issue to note here is that Qth is defined as relative value to uplink target SIR. He
`
` said it would be good to give people some time to think about this. He suggested that we should liaise with RAN WG3
`
` on this issue because they need to take some actions. Chairman stated that we would come back to this on Day4. If
`
` people found no problem by Day4 then we would send a LS to RAN WG3 and RAN WG4. Chairman stated that some
`
` CRs on this issue would be drafted for the next meeting. (Draft CR could be presented during this meeting.)
`
` There was a question made by Lucent asking what we should do with R99 and Rel-4 specification because the WI
`
` created in RAN #14 looks at Rel-5 onwards. We need to make an answer to RAN WG4 on R99/Rel-4 testing issue.
`
` Chairman answered that maybe some clarification would be needed also for R99 and Rel-4 as well. He said that we
`
` would be removing the Qth from R99/Rel-4 in March when we introduce new definition on Qth into Rel-5.
`
` As regards the LS to RAN WG4 chairman stated that we should liaise with RAN WG4 that although there is no need
`
` for defining UTRAN side testing requirements on Qth for R99/Rel-4 as it is not defined in R99/Rel-4, there is a need
`
` to consider it in the later releases.
`
` There would not be any TR created on this Qth issue.
`
` Eventually draft CR was not presented during this meeting.
`
` LS to RAN WG3 was drafted in R1-02-0177. This was reviewed and approved on Day4 into R1-02-0196.(See No. 128)
`
` LS to RAN WG4 on the testing requirements was draft in R1-02-0185 but this was not approved in this meeting.
`
` (See No. 129)
`
`- 4 -
`
`IPR2021-00908 Honeywell Exh. 1006 - Page 4 of 30
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`3.4 UE positioning enhancements for 1.28 Mcps TDD
`
`
`No. Ad Hoc
`
`Tdoc
`
`Title
`
`Source
`
`Conclusion Notes
`
`14
`
`31
`
`R1-02-0002
`
` Rel5 CRs for WI "UE positioning
` enhancements for 1.28 Mcps TDD"
`
`Siemens
`
`Agreed in
`principle
`
`No (*1)
`Comments
`
`Day1 15:13-15:16
`
`(*1) Mr. Andreas Höynck (Siemens) presented this paper.
`
`
` This paper contained CRs for TS 25.224 and TS 25.225 "UE positioning enhancements for 1.28Mcps TDD".
`
`
` The technical discussions for the Work-Item "UE Positioning Enhancements for 1.28Mcps TDD" had been finalized in
`
`
` all involved WGs. In the RAN WG2 technical report there had already been CRs for RAN WG1 specifications drafted
`
`
` and CRs presented in this current paper were copied from RAN WG2 TR.
`
`
` There was no comment raised. Chairman concluded this as "Agreed in principle" because the official approval of the
`
`
` CRs would take place in RAN WG1#24 in Orlando. Chairman invited people to have check until the next meeting and
`
`
` give their comments on the e-mail reflector.
`
`
` Siemens will present this CR again in the next meeting with proper CR number.
`
`/*** NOTE: The first Rel-5 CRs shall be based on the latest Rel-4 specifications. In the "Current version" box of the CR
`coversheet should be filled with the latest Rel-4 version number. The first Rel-5 specifications will have version number 5.0.0.
`***/
`/*** Day1 Coffee break 15:19 – 15:50***/
`
`
`3.5 Multiple Input Multiple Output antennas (MIMO), including the channel model discussions
`
` + Tx diversity
`
`
`
`
`/*** The actual Ad Hoc session was held Day1 16:50 – 19:50 ***/
`
`No. Ad Hoc
`
`Tdoc
`
`Title
`
`Source
`
`Conclusion Notes
`
`15
`
`36
`
`R1-02-0153 Report from Tx diversity/MIMO Ad Hoc Ad Hoc chair Approved
`
`(*1)
`
`Day 3 16:04-16:21
`
`(*1) Mr. Masafumi Usuda (NTT DoCoMo), the chairman of this Ad Hoc session presented this report.
`
` Following 12 papers were covered in the Ad Hoc session held on Day1 evening.
`
` R1-02-0141 MIMO conference call summary (MIMO rapporteur)
`
` R1-02-0142 MIMO system simulation methodology (Lucent)
`
` R1-02-0102
`System channel model and simulation (Motorola)
`
` R1-02-0143 Update on MIMO Channel Measurement Results (Qualcomm)
`
` R1-02-0030 Revised text proposal for a new pilot structure for more than 2 antennas (rev 5)
`
` R1-02-0147 Text proposal for a new pilot structure for more than 2 antennas (Samsung and Siemens)
`
` R1-02-0031
`Predictions about performance of weighted combining schemes for closed loop downlink
`
`
`
`
`
`
`eigenbeamforming (Siemens)
`
` R1-02-0122 Text proposal for TR 25.869 on Tx Diversity mode 2 extensions to more than 2 transmitting
`
`
`
`
`
`
`antennas (Motorola)
`
` R1-02-0117
`3GPP Beamforming vs. Eigenbeamformer. (Nokia)
`
` R1-02-0118
`System performance of STTD for HSDPA. (Nokia)
`
` R1-02-0119 Text proposal for TS25.869 (Nokia)
`
` R1-02-0049 Closed-loop transmit diversity (TxAA) solution for HSDPA (Texas Instrument)
`
`
`
` Mr. Howard Huang (Lucent) gave some update about the offline MIMO discussions.
`
` Rough outline of system simulation can be defined as in Section 3.2, but it’s difficult to define the methodology and
`
` method of comparison in too much detail since they are dependent on the system proposal. Therefore, system level
`
`
`simulation discussions should focus on the channel model, and any harmonization with 3GPP2 should also focus on
`
`
`the channel model.
`
` Details of each proponent’s methodology should be clearly described so that it will be possible for others to compare
`
`
`and/or reproduce results.
`
` Mr. Howard Huang stated that he would provide this summary on the e-mail reflector.
`
` Chairman suggested that some kind of document be provided on Day4 which summarises the current status so that we
`
` could liaise with 3GPP2 colleagues.
`
` Eventually this the summary was documented in R1-02-0181, however this was not reviewed during this meeting.
`
` Since R1-02-0118 and R1-02-0049 had been concluded in the Ad Hoc to be reviewed in the plenary session, chairman
`
` suggested having a look at those papers. (See No. 61, 62)
`
` This report was approved and chairman thanked Mr. Masafumi Usuda for having taken care of the ad hoc session.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`IPR2021-00908 Honeywell Exh. 1006 - Page 5 of 30
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`3.6 NodeB Synchronisation for 1.28 Mcps TDD
`
`
`
`
`/*** The actual Ad Hoc session was held Day1 after the plenary session. ***/
`
`No. Ad Hoc
`
`Tdoc
`
`Title
`
`Source
`
`Conclusion Notes
`
`16
`
`31
`
`R1-02-0166
`
` Report from 1.28 Mcps TDD Node B
` synchronisation session
`
`Ad Hoc chair Approved
`
`(*1)
`
`Day 4 15:17-15:25
`
`(*1) Mr. Antti Toskala (Nokia), the chairman of this Ad Hoc session presented this report.
`
` Following 5 papers were covered in the Ad Hoc session held on Day1 evening.
`
` R1-02-0003 Comments on extended proposals for 1.28Mpcs TDD Node B sync (Siemens)
`
` R1-02-0059 Simulations and performance analysis for LCR-TDD Node B sync (Mitsubishi)
`
` R1-02-0120 Simulation results for Node B synchronization based on Extended SYNC_DL sequence in 1.28 Mcps
`
`
`
`
`
` TDD (Samsung)
`
` R1-02-0106 Elaborated simulation results for impact on initial cell search by blanking of DwPCH for Node B
`
`
`
`
`
` synchronisation over the air for 1.28 Mcps TDD (Siemens)
`
` R1-02-0004 Proposed flexible signalling approach for 1.28 Mcps TDD Node B sync (Siemens)
`
` There was a comment that the meaning of the following sentence regarding the discussion of R1-02-0106 is not clear.
` " It was indicated that all cases were not necessary."
`
`
`
` Chairman proposed to ignore this sentence as he himself did not remember what it meant.
`
` There was also a comment with respect to the blanking rate of DwPCH about the results of offline discussion.
`
` Siemens invited people to have a look at R1-02-0005.
` R1-02-0005 Centralized versus Distributed approach for NodeB sync for 1.28 Mcps TDD
`
`
` Due to the lack of time chairman stopped going into detail online. He encouraged people to make the best use of
`
` e-mail reflector for the discussion on various topics.
`
`
`
`
`
` With respect to MIMO chairman remarked that we are expected to have certain level of corporation with 3GPP2. He
` said that we would discuss the way forward on the e-mail reflector. Probably there will be some kind of call conference.
` He invited people to have a look at R1-02-0181 MIMO discussion summary.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`IPR2021-00908 Honeywell Exh. 1006 - Page 6 of 30
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`Day 2, started at 09.07
`
`4. Identification of the incoming liaison statements and actions in the answering
`
`
` No.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Title
` Response to LS on TFCI power control in
` hard split mode
` LS on Default Configurations for
` UMTS_AMR2 with 4 speech modes
` LS on Different diversity modes used in
` the same active set
`
`20 Answer to LS on S-Field length
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
` Response Liaison on "UTRAN SFN-SFN
` observed time difference measurement"
` LS to seek advice on proposed RABs (PS Domain) to
` be included in Rel 5 of TS 34.108 to support
` conversational class traffic
` LS to request the verification of
` parameters for a proposed RAB in T1
` LS to inform about RABs included for
` 1.28 Mcps TDD option in TS 34.108
`
`RAN
`WG2
`RAN
`WG3
`RAN
`WG3
`T
`WG1
`T1
`SIG
`T1
`SIG
`
`Source To/Cc Tdoc No. Contact point
`RAN
`TO R1-02-0127
`(R3-013688)
`WG3
`RAN
`TO R1-02-0125
`(R2-012763)
`WG2
`TO R1-02-0126
`(R2-012771)
`TO R1-02-0128
`(R3-013694)
`TO R1-02-0129
`(R3-013703)
`TO R1-02-0131
`(T1-010552)
`TO R1-02-0132
`(T1-010554)
`TO R1-02-0133
`(T1S-010239)
`
`Notes
`
` Noted (*1)
`
`Day 1 13:42-13:49
`
` Answer to be sent(*2)
`
`Day 2 09:12-09:30
`
`LGE
`
`Nortel
`Ericsson
`
`Qualcomm Answer to be sent(*3)
`
`Alcatel
`
`Nortel
`
`Day 2 09:30-09:42
`
` Noted (*4)
`
`Day 2 09:42-09:43
`
` Noted  Day4 (*5)
`
`Day 2 09:44-09:51
`
`Hutchison3G Noted (*6)
`
`Nortel
`
`Siemens
`
`Day 2 09:51-09:54
`
` Noted (*7)
`
`Day 2 09:55-09:58
`
` Noted (*8)
`
`Day 2 09:58-10:00
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(*1) LGE presented this LS.
` RAN WG3 was informing us that they had approved TR R3.005v.0.2.1 Enhancement on the DSCH hard split mode
`
` (Iur/Iub aspects) in RAN WG3#25 meeting in Makuhari. The approved TR was attached to the LS.
`
`
` Ms. Evelyne Le Strat (Nortel) remarked that the description regarding TFCI power control is complete contradiction
`
` with the principles in RAN WG3. She was wondering how RAN WG3 had been able to approve this TR. She said that
`
` we RAN WG1 should look into this TR and send LS to RAN WG3 which is to be drafted by different company.
`
` Chairman agreed with this comment.
`
` LGE answered that there might be some inconsistencies of the RAN WG3 TR with RAN WG1 TR at this moment.
`
` They said that they would try to correct them in the RAN WG3 meeting held a week after this meeting.
`
` Eventually an LS was drafted by LGE in R1-02-0148. This LS was reviewed on Day4 and approved in R1-02-0197.
`
` (See No. 130)
`(*2) Ms. Evelyne Le Strat (Nortel) presented this LS.
`
` In this LS RAN WG2 was asking us following:
`
`
`- to provide guidance on the Physical layer parameters that have to be defined for the 2 AMR2 configurations with
`
`
` four speech modes
`
`
`
`(Proposed draft CR to 25.331 on introduction of Default Configurations for AMR2 with 4 speech modes was
`
`
`
` attached. This is the result of the action they had taken in response to the requirement from SA WG4 to
`
`
`
` introduce default configurations for the UMTS_AMR2 Codec Type that uses exactly the same Codec
`
`
`
` Configuration as in GSM.)
`
`
`- to study the possibility to optimise the coding for the Transport Channel bearing Transparent Mode Signalling for
` UL AMR Rate control
`
`
`
`
`
`(RAN WG2 has worked on the correction to UL AMR rate control mechanism in order to allow optimised
`
`
`
` signalling on the downlink. Since their proposal is to have 3 to 10 bits control information, they are afraid that
`
`
`
` it would imply too much overhead if this additional transport channel was to be encoded using convolutional
`
`
`
` codes due to the constraint length, etc. They are asking us whether we could consider the block codes in order to
`
`
`
` reduce this overhead. That is their point. In the background, they are aware that in RAN WG1 specification we
`
`
`
` already have a few block codes such as the one used for TFCI (R99/Rel-4). They are also aware that we are
`
`
`
` working on an introduction of additional block code in the framework of Rel-5 for TFCI coding. This is not
`
`
`
` mere feasibility question but rather they are asking us to consider the performance aspects.)
`
` There were couple of concerns raised against the new introduction of block code saying that it would be too late for
`
` Rel-4 at least.
`
` Chairman commented based on those concerns that this kind of optimisation would be too late for Rel-4 and it would
`
` not be that straightforward and easy thing to add this even for Rel-5 since there would be a lot of impacts on the several
`
` aspects. It would not be trivial exercise. Maybe this would be something we need to discuss together with RAN WG2 in
`
` Orlando if they still see strong need on this.
`
` Finally chairman concluded that we should send a LS to RAN WG2 informing our opinion on this block coding issue
`
` that it is too late to introduce it in Rel-4. With respect to the attached CR, we need to check the details by Day4 and we
`
` should also inform RAN WG2 of our checking result.
`
` Eventually the answer LS was draft by Ms. Evelyne Le Strat in R1-02-0159. This was reviewed on Dday4 and
`
` approved in R1-02-0194. (See No. 125)
`(*3) Mr. Serge Willenegger (Qualcomm) presented this LS.
`
`- 7 -
`
`IPR2021-00908 Honeywell Exh. 1006 - Page 7 of 30
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` RAN WG2 had agreed the attached CR to TS 25.331 for R99/Rel-4 to clarify how the UE is informed of the diversity
`
` mode to be used in the active set. It was also clarified how radio links applying Tx diversity (same mode) can coexist
`
` with radio links in non Tx diversity in the same active set. The intention was not to allow different Tx diversity modes
`
` in the same active set.
`
` In the LS RAN WG2 was asking RAN WG1 to note the clarifications described in this LS and to consider whether it
`
` may be appropriate to reconsider the requirements stated in section 5.3.1 Downlink transmit diversity of
`
` TS 25.211v3.8.0, in particular, the statement "However, the UE shall operate this Tx diversity mode on all radio links".
`
` Since there was a related paper prepared by Panasonic in R1-02-0055, chairman suggested to have a look at that paper.
`
` R1-02-0055 On/Off signalling of Tx-diversity in the same active set
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(09:38-09:41)
`
`
`
` Mr. Hidetoshi Suzuki (Panasonic) presented this paper.
`
`
`
`
`This paper recommended following.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- to agree with RAN2's LS
`
`
`
`
`
`- to keep RAN1 specification as it is. This means the signalling of ON/OFF for STTD has two methods.
`
`
`
`
`
` One is by "closed loop adjustment mode" signalling and the other is "phase reference" signalling.
`
` Chairman suggested offline discussion among interested parties and we would be sending some answer LS to
`
` RAN WG2 on Day4. He said that according to the RAN decision we need to have good reasons if we want to change
`
` something with layer 1 specification with respect to R99.
`
` Chairman asked Mr. Hidetoshi Suzuki to draft a LS. R1-02-0160 was allocated for the draft answer. Eventually draft
`
` answer was not presented during this meeting.
`
`(*4) Mr. Nicolas Billy (Alcatel) presented this LS.
`
` This was the answer LS to R1-01-1239 which RAN WG1 had sent out from RAN WG1#22 meeting in Jeju.
`
` This LS was noted. No action expected.
`
` NEC commented that they have a relevant CR in R1-02-0022 on this topic. Chairman said that we would discuss it on
`
` Day4. (See No. 99, 100)
`(*5) Ms. Sarah Boumendil (Nortel) presented this LS.
`
` This was the answer LS from RAN WG3 to RAN WG4 for the LS (R4-011633) which RAN WG1 had also received
` in RAN WG1#22 in R1-01-1284. In RAN WG1#22, we had approved a CR on UTRAN SFN-SFN observed time
`
` difference measurement in response to the request from RAN WG4.
`
`
` In this current LS, RAN WG3 was informing us of their view on this requirement from RAN WG4 and asking following
`
` 2 actions to RAN WG1.
`
`
`- to define the SFN-SFN Observed Time Difference UTRAN measurement so as to encompass the determination of
`
`
` the SFN Offset.
`
`
`- to investigate whether such a correction is needed for the TDD mode as well.
`
`
` (this was asked for RAN WG4 as well.)
`
` Chairman stated that we would come back to this issue on Day4 when we go through CRs. Eventually this was not
`
` revisited in this meeting.
`(*6