246
`
`GSM and UMTS: The Creation of Global Mobile Communication
`
`series of TSG meetings scheduled for March 2001 in Palm Springs, US. This will obviously
`result in a further stabilisation and extension of the UMTS specifications.
`3GPP is running very well. The individual members from the six OPs seem to be very
`satisfied with this arrangement - and the production line is in full swing.
`Without exaggeration, one can give 3GPP the attribute of a success story. One may quote
`again here Mr Ed Roney who even addressed the 3GPP concept - prior to its realisation - as a
`
`"paradigm shift" .
`As the results of the GSM and UMTS related standardisation work represent a great part of
`ETSI' s deliverables, it might be justified to note here that during the year 2000, ETSI
`published more than seven new deliverables each working day (Monday through Friday),
`
`i.e. one deliverable per hour!
`Further information may be found on the 3GPP website at http://www.3gpp.org.
`
`Se
`20
`
`Niel
`
`9.2.
`
`In th
`pcric
`l.iter
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1201
`
`Ex.1201.00001
`
`

`

`ile Communication
`
`tis will obviously
`
`seem to be very
`
`r. One may quote
`realisation - as a
`
`ent a great part of
`year 2000, ETSI
`through Friday),
`
`1gpp.org.
`
`Chapter 9: The Third Generation
`Partnership Project (3GPP)
`
`Section 2: UMTS 1n 3GPP (December 1998-May
`/2001)
`
`Niels Peter Skov Andersen 1
`
`9.2.1 A Change of Environment
`
`In the period 1982 until end of 1998 the work on the GSM standard, and in the later part of the
`period on UMTS, had been performed in the same environment, starting under CEPT and
`later transferred into ETSI. The Technical Committee GSM, during this period renamed to
`MG, and its working groups (Sub Technical Committees) had continuously existed and
`evolved. The same was the case for the working methods and procedures used within the
`work. Over time with the success of the GSM system more and more interested parties
`became involved in the work including parties from outside the original CEPT area.
`However, this was all a relatively slow evolution and no major revolutions in the organisation
`or the working methods occurred in this period.
`After all these years of continuity in the work the discussions around the creation of 3GPP
`and the decision to establish 3GPP for the initial phase of UMTS 2 naturally created some
`uncertainty amongst the members of SMG. Especially the resulting split of the GSM stan(cid:173)
`dardisation, with the responsibility for the GSM core network transferred to 3GPP, but the
`rl.! ponsibility for the GSM radio access Network maintenance remained in ETSI in SMG.
`Thi caused some concern amongst many delegates. Also the internal structure for the
`1 chnical work within 3GPP was different from the well-known structure in SMG. SMG
`\a ba ed on a technical plenary with a number of working groups (SMGl, SMG2, ... ,
`1012) performing the detailed technical work. The SMG plenary was the approving
`uth rity for the results of the work performed by the working groups. Also the plenary
`'1 the group responsible for approval of all new work items and the content of the releases.
`h' tructure for the work in 3GPP, as agreed by the partners, was quite different. The project
`
`1 he views expressed in this section are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of his affiliation
`
`I
`
`h~ te rm UMTS is throughout this section used to keep consistency of terminology with the other chapters and
`1 10 · The tem1 UMTS do not appear in the in 3GPP agreement, which defines the system as a third generation
`11
`y,tem ba ed on an evolved GSM core network and UTRAN (including UTRAN (FDD and TDD modes)).
`
`Ex.1201.00002
`
`

`

`248
`
`GSM and UMTS : The Creation of Global Mobile Communication
`
`Chapter
`
`first me
`already
`in the g
`Even
`principl
`the gro
`terms o
`referenc
`ence fo
`adjustm
`In or
`the SD
`TSGs to
`and pro
`Lauderd
`the end
`groups,
`e tablis
`already
`By th
`atmo p
`tcchn ic
`nc ded t
`·hairme
`
`was organised with four equal Technical Specification Groups (TSGs), who had complete
`autonomy for their area of responsibility, i.e. they were responsible for approval of new work
`items and final approval of deliverables. The four technical groups originally defined were:
`
`TSGCN
`TSG-RAN
`
`Responsible for the core network development
`Responsible for the radio access network based on UTRAN (FDD and TDD
`modes)
`Responsible for services and system aspects
`Responsible for Terminal and UIM
`
`TSG-SA
`TST-T
`In addition to the technical groups the 3GPP organisation has a Project Coordination Group
`(PCG). However, the role of this PCG cannot be compared to the role the SMG plenary
`played. The SMG plenary was an open technical group with the approving authority in all
`technical questions including approval of new work items. The 3GPP PCG is a closed group
`with a defined membership consisting of a limited number representative of each of the
`partners (SDOs, MRPs) and the leadership (chairman and two vice-chairmen) of each
`TSG. Thus as a closed group the role of the PCG becomes more like a board overlooking
`the overall well being of the project.
`This structure made many long-term SMG delegates concerned about how the overall
`coordination of the project could be ensured. This new structure was not introduced to
`overcome known deficits of the SMG organisation, but in my opinion, by political considera(cid:173)
`tions to ensure than no single individual, individual member, organisational partner could
`obtain a controlling position in the project.
`
`9.2.2 The First Two TSG Meetings
`The inauguration meeting of the 3GPP TSGs was held in December 1998 in Sophia Antipolis.
`France. In the process of creation of 3GPP this was the first time that the 3GPPs real work
`force - the technical experts - met. The main objectives for this first meeting was to get the
`work started. One of the elements of the meeting was a presentation from the different
`partners on the status of their work on the third generation mobile system, the work, which
`they now were in the process of handing over to 3GPP.
`Listening to the presentations and the discussions during the breaks it was very obviou
`that the background for standardization amongst the delegates was quite different. As an
`example, I remember that during the coffee break just after I, as chairman of ETSI SMG2, had
`presented the status of the UMTS radio work in ETSI, and had ended my presentation h
`stating that the UMTS radio work would only be on the agenda of one more meeting of ET 1
`SMG2. This was in order to complete the documentation to be handed over to 3GPP and th
`the work on UMTS radio in ETSI would cease, a small group of non-ETSI delegate cam 1
`me and asked "if all work on UMTS radio in ETSI ceases, how do the Europeans then
`ordinate their views on 3GPP?" Coming from the ETSI SMG background this was a comrl
`tely unexpected question, as the working procedures for 3GPP were very similar to tho
`ETSI, it was clear to me that the contributions to 3GPP in general should come from
`individual members - the companies, regulators etc. - in their own name and not a rcgi
`contributions. I explained this, but I also understood that for delegates with a backgroun
`international standardization from, e.g. ITU this was the normal way of thinking. Dun n
`
`1
`
`Ex.1201.00003
`
`

`

`le Communication
`
`Chapter 9: The Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)
`
`249
`
`ho had complete
`)Val of new work
`lly defined were:
`
`(FDD and TDD
`
`ordination Group
`he SMG plenary
`g authority in all
`is a closed group
`e of each of the
`airmen) of each
`Jard overlooking
`
`how the overall'
`1ot introduced to
`,litical considera-
`1al partner could
`
`Sophia Antipolis,
`3GPPs real work
`ng was to get the
`·om the different
`the work, which
`
`Nas very obviou-.
`different. As an
`ETSI SMG2, haJ
`y presentation b)
`meeting of ET I
`to 3GPP and tht:n
`folegates came to
`1ropeans then co·
`us was a comph:·
`imilar to those 01
`d come from th ·
`1d not as region I
`1 a backgrou nd 111
`tking. During. 1h1
`
`first meeting a lot of small explanations similar to this were given over a cup of coffee and
`already by the second meeting there was a far better common understanding on how the work
`in the groups was intended to be performed.
`Even though the partners, already before the first meeting of the TSGs, had made the
`principle decision of having four TSGs and had elaborated draft terms of references for
`the groups, the definition of the area of responsibility for the TSGs and refinement of the
`terms of references was a key item on the agenda. Each of the TSGs adjusted their terms of
`references and with some subsequent adjustments at the second meeting, the terms of refer(cid:173)
`ence for the TSGs have until now (March 2001) stayed the same except for few minor
`adjustments.
`, In order to get the detailed work started and not loose the momentum, which had existed in
`the SDOs before the creation of 3GPP, it was a very important task at the first meeting of the
`TSGs to get the detailed work within the TSGs organised so technical work could commence
`and progress in the period up to the second meetings of the TSGs in March 1999 in Fort
`Lauderdale. This part of the programme for the first meetings of the TSGs went well, and by
`the end of the meeting each of the TSGs had established between three and five working
`groups, outlined their area of responsibility and appointed convenors for the groups. With the
`establishment of the working groups the detailed technical work was ready to start, and
`already by the second meeting of the TSGs significant progress was reported.
`By the second meeting of the TSGs, which took place in Fort Lauderdale, the complete
`atmosphere had changed from the general uncertainty and procedural questions to a far more
`technical focus , even though a few items of a management and organisational nature still
`needed to be sorted out. In addition, at this second meeting the leadership ( chairman and vice(cid:173)
`chairmen) for the individual TSGs was elected for the next 2-year period.
`As indicated, one of the main differences with the 3GPP organisation compared to the
`organisation of SMG was the lack of a superior technical group with an open plenary with
`re ponsibility for the technical coordination, final decision making, conflict resolution and the
`project management including adaptation of work items, etc. Already the original description
`for the role of TSG SA, which was elaborated by partners together with the 3GPP agreement
`in Copenhagen in early December 1998, contained a paragraph on giving TSG SA the role of
`- "High level co-ordination of the work performed in other TSGs and monitoring of
`pr gress" . This role was subsequently reflected in the terms of references for TSG SA agreed
`~•t the first meeting of TSG SA (TSG SA#0l). At the second meeting of TSG SA the TSG SA
`rnnvenor Mr Fred Harrison, BT, provide a proposal 3 for how the TSG SA could fulfil its
`pr j ct coordination role. The key principles of the proposal were:
`
`• T establish a project management function to create and maintain a cross TSG project
`programme including status of technical specification and reports.
`• T e tablish close co-operation with TSG CN; TSG RAN and TSG T. Requiring the
`chairman or vice-chairman of each TSG to attend the TSG-SA meetings and bring new
`\\ rk items, issues and progress information to the attention of TSG-SA.
`\t the meeting another proposal 4 was received from a group of companies 5 who suggested
`h I a TSG plenary be created, i.e. a fifth TSG with plenary function similar to that of ETSI
`
`1:·99050: proposals for managing the TSG project co-ordination role.
`1-9 068: TSG plenary .
`r ·T. BT, FRANCE TELECOM, NTT DOCOMO, TIM, TMOBIL.
`
`Ex.1201.00004
`
`

`

`de
`de
`sp
`th
`T
`ar
`st
`th
`
`ti
`3
`la
`
`fo
`
`0
`0
`
`m
`w
`
`250
`
`GSM and UMTS: The Creation of Global Mobile Communication
`
`SMG. The argument for this proposal was that a TSG plenary would help to ensure overall
`project coordination and elaboration of a consistent and complete set of UMTS specifications.
`After long discussions a compromise not requiring changes to the TSG structure was found
`and agreed. This comprise 6 was based on the following principles for the TSG SA' s project
`
`coordination role:
`• At least while performing its project co-ordination role, the TSG SA will not meet at the
`
`same time as other TSGs.
`• At least one representative of TSGs RAN, CN and T and their working groups will attend
`each TSG SA meeting, to report on the activities of their respective TSG. They shall be
`responsible for bringing new work items, issues and progress statements on work such as
`specifications and existing work items from their respective TS Gs to the attention of TSG
`
`SA.
`• The TSG SA plenary will also include reports from its own working groups and facilitate
`information exchange between those working groups and the other TSGs.
`• The TSG SA shall have arbitration responsibility to resolve disputes between TSGs.
`
`As can be seen from the principles, the independence and the rights of the other TSGs was
`not touched by the compromise. Each TSG maintained its right to approve work items and
`deliverables, etc. As a result of the way forward on the TSG SA management role, the TSG
`meetings in Fort Lauderdale were the last meetings where all four TSGs met in parallel. At
`the subsequent TSG meetings in Shin-Yokohama in Japan at the end of April TSG CN, TSG
`RAN and TSG T met in parallel followed by TSG SA and the chairmen of TSG CN; TSG
`RAN and TSG T provided to TSG SA a status report on the work and progress in their
`respective TS Gs. The TSG SA meetings starting from the third meeting in Shin-Yokohama
`then had a three part structure. A part related to TSG SA internal matters where the differenl
`TSG SA working groups report the progress of their work and submit their contributions for
`approval, this part is similar to the work in the other TSGs. A second part related to the
`technical coordination with the other TSGs and a third part dealt with general project
`management issues such as working methods, document handling, etc.
`By the end of the second TSG meetings most of the "beginners" difficulties had been
`resolved, the interaction between the TSGs defined and TSG SA was ready to take on-board i
`role in the coordination role. Also the second TSG meetings showed that the detailed work in
`the working groups had got a good start, the work handed over from the partners was \\ t: II
`received and progressing well. All in all, the definition and establishment phase of t
`technical work in 3GPP had been completed successfully and the transfer of work fn m
`1
`the partners to 3GPP had been performed without causing any major disruption in
`
`ongoing technical work.
`
`9.2.3 The First Release - Release 99
`After the two first two meetings of the TSGs where especially TSG SA had used tilll
`organise the work, the third meetings were into their routine and could fully concentr••
`
`the technical specification work.
`The work in 3GPP followed the same basic methodology as was used for the GSM "
`1
`ETSI. The specifications generally are based on a three stage approach, with a
`
`6 SP-99087: proposals for managing the TSG project co-ordination role.
`
`Ex.1201.00005
`
`

`

`Jile Communication
`
`Chapter 9: The Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)
`
`251
`
`J to ensure overall
`ITS specifications.
`tructure was found
`TSG SA' s project
`
`vill not meet at the
`
`groups will attend
`'SG. They shall be
`tts on work such as
`te attention of TSG
`
`roups and facilitate
`SGs.
`between TSGs.
`
`the other TSGs was
`JVe work items ~nd
`ment role, the TSG
`, met in parallel. At
`\.pril TSG CN, TSG
`a of TSG CN; TSG
`1d progress in their
`in Shin-Yokohama
`, where the different
`eir contributions for
`l part related to the
`vith general project
`
`iifficulties had been
`,y to take on-board i
`the detailed work in
`1e partners was well
`hment phase of the:
`msfer of work from
`or disruption in th1.:
`
`)A had used tinit: 1
`fully concentratt: n
`
`for the GSM \\ ork 10
`Jach, with a stag 1
`
`description containing the functional requirements, stage 2 containing the overall functional
`description and architecture for a given functionality and stage 3 being the detailed technical
`specification down to the bit level. Working with this methodology the idea is of course that
`the stage 1 description is first completed or nearly completed so the requirements are clear.
`The next step is then to complete the stage 2 description and thereby define the overall
`architecture and functional split for the technical realisation of the functionality. When
`stage 2 is complete or close to completion the third step the stage 3 specifications containing
`the detailed technical specification is complete.
`However, it was not possible for 3GPP to do this work serially, because of the very short
`timescale for completion of the first set of specifications in December 1999 only 1 year from
`3GPP's creation in December 1998. Thus the work on stage 1, 2 and 3 specifications had to a
`large degree to be performed in parallel. Doing so TSG SA WG2, which is responsible for
`system architecture, quickly became a bottleneck in the process, as it was difficult, especially
`for TSG CN (core network) to draft the detailed specification before the architectural deci(cid:173)
`sions were made. This problem peaked at the fourth TSG SA meeting in June 1999, when
`going through the status report from TSG SA WG2, where it became clear to the full
`membership that an extraordinary effort was needed to ensure that the architectural work
`was speeded up.
`Standardisation by committee is not a traditional project, where the project leader can
`reallocate resources to the most urgent task. In standardisation the important task is to ensure
`that all the participants know and understand where additional effort is most urgently needed,
`o the volunteer work effort is pointed in the right direction. The recognition of the need for
`an extraordinary effort in TSG SA WG2 helped to speed up the architectural work and
`minimise the problem of TSG SA WG2 being a bottleneck. The initial delay of course
`made the work schedule even tougher for the groups responsible for the detailed stage 3
`, pecifications.
`As you can imagine it is not possible here to go into the details of the work, which led to the
`fi r t set of specification from 3GPP in December 1999. In the following I will therefore only
`provide a few of examples of items, which required resolution by TSG SA.
`For UMTS a new ciphering and authentication mechanism providing a higher degree of
`e urity has been developed. The SIM card (for UMTS USIM) is involved in the authentica(cid:173)
`ti n process and calculates the necessary keys for the authentication and ciphering. Thus new
`IM cards are required, or to be technically correct, cards with the USIM application are
`req uired. In the following I will use the short term USIM to indicate the card supporting the
`ne\ ecurity algorithms and SIM for the old cards supporting the GSM level of security. At
`the third meeting of the TSGs there was the question of whether the UMTS networks should
`on ly upport USIM and thus always provide the highest possible degree of security or
`hether it should be possible to access a UMTS network with terminals with a SIM only.
`>n ne hand a number of delegates believed that it was preferable only to allow the usage of
`I
`in the UMTS terminals, this on the other hand was questioned by operators that could
`ir
`e a slower roll-out of UMTS, e.g. due to the expected licensing time. For them a
`1uir ment for usage of USIM only in the UMTS terminals would leave them with two
`It ·m_ ti ves; either to issue USIMs even though they did not yet have a UMTS network, or be
`Ituation where their customers could not roam to, e.g. Japan and Korea with no GSM
`1 'ork but only UMTS networks. This lead to a long discussion where it could have been
`mptmg to perform a quick vote; however, to keep the good spirit of cooperation and
`
`Ex.1201.00006
`
`

`

`Chap
`
`kno
`funct
`whic
`coul
`hand
`routi
`of se
`regul
`need
`tion
`reas
`eco
`ubs
`varia
`n t
`woul
`, ari
`T
`T G
`can
`th
`
`t
`
`252
`
`GSM and UMTS: The Creation of Global Mobile Communication
`
`consensus based work I as 3GPP TSO SA chairman considered voting as an emergency
`solution if everything else failed. As almost always the attempt to find a solution for
`which consensus could be obtained succeeded. The comprise was found based on the follow -
`ing elements: 7
`• Support access to UMTS access networks while using cards equipped with either the SIM,
`the USIM functionality or both; and
`• Allow a serving UMTS operator the option to block access to the UMTS access network
`when a card equipped only with a SIM functionality is used.
`
`As usual when compromises of this type were obtained it was the assumption of the
`meeting that the companies/members who required the capability should do the work to
`specify the signalling and other mechanisms required.
`At the fourth TSO meetings the very rare situation of one of the other TSGs raising an issue
`to TSO SA for resolution occurred. TSO CN had completed the feasibility study of the
`Gateway Location Register (GLR). TSO CN had then decided not to start specification
`work for the GLR. However, as some members of TSO CN had expressed strong interest
`in the GLR, it had been proposed to let the interested parties elaborate the specifications
`required for the GLR outside TSO CN and submit the result to TSO CN. This decision had
`caused some problems and the TSO CN raised the question to TSO SA of how to proceed, e.g.
`should a vote be taken. I as chairman of TSO SA indicated to the meeting that votes were to
`be seen as an emergency solution when everything else has failed. First, an attempt should be
`made to find a solution for which consensus can be obtained. For this explicit case it seemed
`clear that the resistance to start work on the GLR was coming from operators not seeing the
`need for a GLR and fearing that the introduction would impact existing networks and other
`networks without a GLR. On the other hand especially operators with no GSM legaC)
`network showed a strong interest in the GLRs as a way to reduce the amount of international
`signalling caused by roamers moving around in very densely populated areas. Taking into
`account the strong interest and the concerns expressed, it was found, that there would be no
`problem, if a GLR could be done in such a way, that it had no impact on an existing HLR
`(pre-30), if a subscriber belonging to a HLR roamed onto a network utilising a GLR.
`Similarly the support of the GLR in one network should not impact networks not utili. ing
`the GLR. Based on this analysis, TSO SA recommended that TSO CN adopt a work item on
`GLR requiring a GLR to be fully compatible with old and new non-GLR network". •
`hopefully can be seen from this example it is and has been a key priority in 3GPP to a., far
`as possible base decisions on consensus as it also was the case for the GSM development in
`
`ETSI.
`Another type of problem, which every now and then needs resolution at TSG level i, t
`specific national or regional requirement often caused by the local regulation. Requiremlnl
`that often can cause problems in relation to roaming. One example of this is the emergl!n
`call where TSO SA at meeting number 5 received a proposal 9 for national variatilln
`1
`terminals to cater for the differences in emergency call requirements. When GS
`1
`introduced one unique number for initiating emergency calls had been defined ( l 12 l:
`ensured that a roaming user would always be able to perform a emergency call "it
`
`7 SP-99208.
`8 HLR = home location register.
`9 SP-99481.
`
`Ex.1201.00007
`
`

`

`bile Communication
`
`Chapter 9: The Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)
`
`253
`
`as an emergency
`nd a solution for
`tsed on the follow-
`
`·ith either the SIM,
`
`rs access network
`
`assumption of the
`ld do the work to
`
`Gs raising an issue
`Jility study of the
`start specification
`sed strong interest
`the specifications
`This decision had
`ow to proceed, e.g.
`that votes were to
`t attempt should be
`jcit case it seemed
`.tors not seeing the
`1etworks and other
`1 no GSM legacy
`mt of international
`areas. Taking into
`there would be no
`t an existing HLR
`: utilising a GLR.
`works not utilising
`opt a work item on
`}LR networks.
`, in 3GPP to a far
`:M development in
`
`at TSO level i thl:
`tion. Requirem nt
`s is the emerg m:~
`:ional variati on Pn
`When GS M ,,a
`defined (11 2); till
`sency call wittwul
`
`✓
`
`knowing a any specific local situation. When GSM entered into new parts of the world this
`function had been improved by letting the local operator store a number on the SIM card
`which should be considered as the emergency call number, and thus, e.g. and American user
`could use 911 wherever he brought his mobile. However, there are other differences in the
`handling of emergency calls other than just the number to dial. The GSM solution only allows
`routing of emergency calls to one central emergency centre and does not differentiate the type
`of service needed such as ambulance, fire brigade or police. However, some operators had a
`regulatory requirement to route directly emergency calls to the relevant service and thus
`needed different numbers per service. Therefore, they had suggested having a national varia(cid:173)
`tion of terminals. After some discussion in TSO SA the proposal was rejected. The main
`reasons for this was that it was seen as essential to avoid local variations of terminals and
`secondly a solution based on local variation of terminals would not solve the problem of
`subscribers roaming from other parts of the world with terminals without the specific local
`variation. Anyhow, the rejection of the proposal did not mean that the problem was ignored;
`on the contrary the relevant working groups were tasked to find a generic solution, which
`would satisfy the local regulations without causing problems with roaming or requiring
`variation in terminals.
`That the previous examples from the elaboration of 3GPP Release 99 all come from the
`TSG SA does not mean that this type of problem does not appear in the other TS Gs. As also
`can be imagined, the specification of a complete new radio access network in TSO RAN in
`the timeframe of 1 year was one of the most demanding tasks during the elaboration of the
`fi rst set of specifications from 3GPP (Release 99).
`As mentioned earlier, when 3GPP started in December 1998 a target date of December
`1999 was set for the first set of specifications. So the sixth meetings of the TSGs in Nice,
`France in December 1999 were the meetings where the status for the first year of 3GPP was to
`be made. In order to get a full overview of the status of the work and the degree of completion,
`the process for documenting the remaining open issues had been agreed amongst the chairs
`and vice-chairs of all of the TSGs.
`The principle for this was relatively simple and building on the assumption and desire that
`a -;et of specifications should be completed and frozen at the sixth meetings of the TSGs. The
`term frozen meant that there should be no functional changes or additions made to the set of
`P cifications, but only strictly necessary corrections of errors or omissions which if uncor(cid:173)
`fl:C ted risk making the system malfunction. The idea behind the principle was that at the next
`meetings of the TSGs all proposed changes to the specifications, which could not be justified
`•1 an essential correction should be rejected, unless an exception for that specific item had
`~en given in December 1999. In order to document these exceptions all working groups and
`TSG. had prepared and forwarded to TSO SA sheets describing the non-completed function(cid:173)
`tltt} for which they wished to have granted an exception from the general rule of no func(cid:173)
`lt inal changes. In addition to the description of the functionality, the sheet also indicated the
`on quences if this functionality was completely removed from Release 99.
`T GSA collected the status reports from the different groups and created a relatively large
`10
`hi
`where on one side was the different functionalities and on the other side the different
`iup and in the table an indication if a group had requested an exception for completion of
`1 un tionality . After having created this table based on the status reports, TSG SA went
`>ug h the table on a per functionality basis and evaluated the expected completion date and
`P-99639.
`
`Ex.1201.00008
`
`

`

`Chapte
`
`referen
`usage
`model
`typical
`TS
`require
`1 desc
`TSGS
`tation t
`TSG
`divide
`WG2.
`detaile
`with T
`detaile
`the pro
`The
`(WTs) .
`tion(s),
`the exi
`Apa
`)nerg
`more t
`lull . y
`b twee
`,p rati
`.\bo
`
`/
`
`254
`
`GSM and UMTS: The Creation of Global Mobile Communication
`
`the necessity of the function in Release 99. In order to maximise the stability of the set of
`specifications, especially in the case where several groups had items open for the same
`functionality, specifications were scrutinised in detail and in several cases the functionality
`was completely removed from 3GPP Release 99. This review led to the removal of function(cid:173)
`alities such as Enhanced Cell Broadcast, Tandem Free Operation for AMR, Support of
`Localised Service Area and a reduction in the location service functionality in Release 99.
`At the end of the December 1999 TSG SA meeting approximately 80 exceptions from the
`rule of no functional changes were granted. At the following meeting of the TSGs in Madrid
`in March 2000 the status and the list of open items was once again reviewed and the number
`of open items was reduced from 80 to approximately 30. At the TSG meetings in June 2000
`the remaining open items were completed and since then only necessary corrections could be
`made. However, it is to be understood, that when such a substantial set of specifications for
`the 3GPP Release 99 have been elaborated in the time frame of approximately 1 year, it is
`unavoidable that there are some ambiguities and errors in the specifications. It is a very
`important task to have these errors corrected in the specification as soon as they are discov(cid:173)
`ered, as this is the only way to avoid small differences in implementation due to different
`solutions to errors. Differences which if not avoided could lead to problems of interoper(cid:173)
`ability, etc. Also it should be noted that there will continuously be errors discovered in the
`specifications which need to be corrected, at least until every detail has been implemented and
`made operational in the field.
`
`9.2.4 Introduction of Project Management
`As indicated, one of the main differences with the 3GPP organisation compared to the
`organisation of SMG was the lack of a superior technical group with an open plenary with
`responsibility for the technical coordination, final decision making, conflict resolution and the
`project management including adaptation of work items, etc. Instead the different TSG
`approved work items and technical work on their own. Even though they reported the statu
`of their work to TSG SA there was no simple way to for linking a given functionality with the:
`work being performed in the different TSGs. This was clearly a problem during the elabora(cid:173)
`tion of Release 99, as it was difficult for the delegates to get an overview of which fun ::ti on(cid:173)
`alities were on the critical path for completion. To get an overview actually required that ke
`experts from the different areas sit together and fit the different parts of the puzzle. It there
`fore, required quite some effort in an·d outside the TSG meetings of December 1999 1
`provide an overview, which allowed the meetings to make conscious decisions.
`As this potential problem was clear to me from the start of the project, I had, already at 1
`second meeting of the TSGs in March 1999, had discussions with the chairmen of TSG
`WG 1 and TSG SA WG2 on introducing a model for the project co-ordination which '' l u
`follow the work from the initial requirements to completion. This model was then intro<lu
`for initial discussion to the leadership ( chairmen and vice-chairmen) of the other TSG al
`third meeting of the TSGs. During the rest of 1999 additional background work was dllO
`order to prepare for the introduction of the model for project co-ordination. At the Dec~rn
`I
`r
`1999 TSG SA the model was