[{"name":"R5-232041","title":"Reply LS on 15 dBm output power requirement for NS_41","source":"TSG WG RAN4","contact":"Ingbert Sigovich","contact-id":28887,"tdoctype":"LS in","for":"Information","abstract":"RAN4 appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback and clarification in support of RAN5\u2019s test definition for NS_41.  The LS R5-227958 refers to \u201cband n30 NS_41\u201d but RAN4 interprets this as a typographical error with the intention being NR Band n50 for NS_41.  RAN4 further comments the same note \u201cThis requirement shall be verified with UE transmission power of 15 dBm\u201d is also present for E-UTRA Band 50 NS_41, Band 51 NS_40, and Band 74 NS_38 and for NR Band n51 NS_40 and Band n74 NS_38.  The feedback provided in this Reply LS is applicable to all of these bands and NS\u2019s for both E-UTRA and NR.\nRAN4\u2019s intention for this spurious emissions requirement is the UE shall be able to meet an emission limit of -32 dBm when its transmission power is 15 dBm for \u201cpermitted\u201d allocations.  Permitted allocations are defined by starting RB and RB length (i.e., RBstart and LCRB) for which the emission limit is expected to be met with the UE transmitting at 15 dBm output power.  These allocations have been identified by RAN4 as having zero A-MPR; in other words, these are allocations for which A-MPR is not allowed in 36.101 and 38.101-1 specifications.  These allocations should be tested at 15 dBm output power to ensure compliance with the -32 dBm emission limit under the spurious emissions clause 6.6.3 of 36.101 and clause 6.5.3 of 38.101-1.  One possible way to construct this test is to signal the PEMAX,c of 15 dB and issue repeated TPC \u201cup\u201d commands until the UE reaches its maximum power no higher than 15 dBm.\nOn the other hand, other allocations may require the UE to take A-MPR power backoff in excess of 8 dB from its maximum output power of 23 dB; in other words, the UE may not be able to reach 15 dBm output power for these other allocations while meeting the emission limit.  For these other allocations, RAN4 has defined the corresponding A-MPR tables, an example of which was shown in R5-227958.  These other allocations and their A-MPR can be tested under the UE maximum output power with additional requirements clause 6.2.4 of 38.101 and UE additional maximum output power reduction clause 6.2.3 of 38.101-1.  The same method as described above signaling PEMAX,c of 15 dB repeated TPC \u201cup\u201d commands can be used here as well.\nTo more precisely align the RAN4 specification with the above understanding, RAN4 has agreed to CR\u2019s (see attached) to modify the note to read \u201cThis requirement shall be verified with UE transmission power configured as high as possible but no higher than 15 dBm.\u201d\nWith the above, RAN4 would like to provide the following responses to the questions from RAN5\nQ1: Is option 1 or 2 above or any different interpretation the right one?  \nRAN4:  Option 1 is the correct interpretation.\nQ2: If option 1 is the correct one: Provide feedback on how to reach 15 dBm Tx power\nRAN4:  15 dBm Tx power can be reached by issuing repeated TPC \u201cup\u201d commands.  15 dBm will not be exceeded by signaling PEMAX,c of 15 dB.  It is recommended to test allocations with zero A-MPR for spurious emissions.\nQ3: Provide feedback on whether RAN5 should include a test requirement that the UE Tx power shall not be more than 15 dBm when NS_41 is signalled.\nRAN4:  This requirement does not apply and shall not be tested at power levels above 15 dBm as indicated by the corrected note.  \n2\tActions\nTo: RAN5 RAN4 invites RAN5 to take the above clarification and responses into consideration when defining the requirements associated with NS_41, NS_40, and NS_38 for E-UTRA and NR.","secretary_remarks":"LS R5-206259 on failing initial registration without Retry-After header field from RAN5","agenda_item_sort_order":21,"ainumber":"5.2","ainame":"Review incoming LS (fm A.I. 3) & new subject discussion papers","tdoc_agenda_sort_order":20410,"status":"noted","reservation_date":"2023-04-19 16:00:17","uploaded":"2023-04-19 16:57:04","revisionof":"","revisedto":"","release":"Rel-15","crspec":"","crspecversion":"","workitem":[{"winame":"5GS_NR_LTE-UEConTest"}],"crnumber":"","crrevision":"","crcategory":"","tsg_crp":"","lsreplyto":"","lsto":"","Cc":"","lsoriginalls":"","lsreply":"","link":"https:\/\/www.3gpp.org\/ftp\/tsg_ran\/WG5_Test_ex-T1\/TSGR5_99_Incheon\/Docs\/R5-232041.zip","group":"R5","meeting":"R5-99","year":2023,"uicc_affected":"","me_affected":"","ran_affected":"","cn_affected":"","clauses_affected":"","crsinpack":null,"crsinpacknumber":0},
{"name":"R5-232043","title":"Reply LS on lower humidity limit in normal temperature test environment","source":"TSG WG RAN4","contact":"Ingbert Sigovich","contact-id":28887,"tdoctype":"LS in","for":"Information","abstract":"RAN4 thanks RAN5 for the LS R5- 221604 on lower humidity limit in normal temperature test environment.\nRegarding the following question from RAN5:\nRAN WG5 respectfully requests RAN WG4 to provide the reason why the lower humidity limit in normal temperature test environment differs in GERAN\/UTRA\/E-UTRA\/NR. Are there any detail considerations to keep the lower humidity limit for normal test environment?\n\nRAN4 discussed the issue of lower humidity limit in normal temperature test environment for several meetings. After further check with the history of GSM\/WCDMA\/LTE specs, it is found that the lower humidity limit was first introduced into 3GPP TS 05.05 for radio transmission and reception of GSM\/EDGE. The issue of humidity inconsistency among specifications does exist.\n\nRAN4 concludes that the relative humidity for normal test conditions should be uniformly specified for E-UTRA\/NR systems and decides to replace the inconsistent humidity range with relative humidity to \u201cup to 75 %\u201d in core specifications.\n\nRAN4 has agreed the following changes to TS 38.101-1 and 38.101-2 in R4-2302504 and R4-2302505, respectively.\n+15 \u00b0C to +35 \u00b0C\tFor normal conditions (with relative humidity of 25 %up to 75 %)\n-10 \u00b0C to +55 \u00b0C\tFor extreme conditions (see IEC publications 68 2 1 and 68 2 2)\n\n+ 25 \u00b0C \u00b1 10 \u00b0C\tFor normal (room temperature) conditions with relative humidity of 25 % up to 75 %\n-10?C to +55?C\tFor extreme conditions\n\n2. Actions:\nTo RAN5: RAN4 asks RAN5 to take the above decisions in RAN4 into consideration in future work.","secretary_remarks":"","agenda_item_sort_order":21,"ainumber":"5.2","ainame":"Review incoming LS (fm A.I. 3) & new subject discussion papers","tdoc_agenda_sort_order":20430,"status":"noted","reservation_date":"2023-04-19 16:00:17","uploaded":"2023-04-19 16:57:04","revisionof":"","revisedto":"","release":"Rel-15","crspec":"","crspecversion":"","workitem":[{"winame":"5GS_NR_LTE-UEConTest"}],"crnumber":"","crrevision":"","crcategory":"","tsg_crp":"","lsreplyto":"","lsto":"","Cc":"","lsoriginalls":"","lsreply":"","link":"https:\/\/www.3gpp.org\/ftp\/tsg_ran\/WG5_Test_ex-T1\/TSGR5_99_Incheon\/Docs\/R5-232043.zip","group":"R5","meeting":"R5-99","year":2023,"uicc_affected":"","me_affected":"","ran_affected":"","cn_affected":"","clauses_affected":"","crsinpack":null,"crsinpacknumber":0},
{"name":"R5-232046","title":"Reply LS on FR2 RLM\/BFD and beam sweeping from multiple directions","source":"TSG WG RAN4","contact":"Ingbert Sigovich","contact-id":28887,"tdoctype":"LS in","for":"Information","abstract":"RAN4 appreciates the observations on FR2 RLM and BFD test cases explained in the LS R5-231830. RAN4 agrees with the RAN5 assessment that the purpose of AoA setup 3 to monitor multiple RLM-RS from different directions may not be fully achieved with the current test configurations. It is also RAN4 consensus that it is sufficient to have one test case which can reflect the aspect. With this consensus, RAN4 reached the following agreement in RAN4 #106-bis-e meeting:\nAgreements:\n\u2022\tRAN4 is to swap the SNR levels of two configured RLM resources during T4 and T5 for RLM IS test cases\n\u2022\tRLM OOS test cases are not changed\n\nAccordingly, RAN4 answers the questions asked in the LS R5-231830.\nQ1: Can RLM FR2 test cases be revised to address the lack of testing coverage identified in this paper, (e.g. by changing the test parameters)?\n\nA1: FR2 RLM In-syn test cases (A.5.5.1.2 and A.5.5.1.6, A.7.5.1.2 and A.7.5.1.6) will be revised such that SNR levels, during T4 and T5, of the configured two RLM resources are swapped in respective test cases.\n\n\nQ2: Would BFD test cases \/test definition ensure UE beam sweeping testing from different AoAs?\n\nA2: As BFD test cases are defined based on AoA setup 1, the test case do not ensure UE beam sweeping ability and performance. The test configurations for BFD test cases are kept unchanged.\n\nNote that the above conclusion is expected to be reflected in the corresponding test cases in RAN4 #107 meeting.\n2\tActions\nTo RAN5: RAN4 asks RAN5 to take RAN4 feedback provided above into account.","secretary_remarks":"","agenda_item_sort_order":21,"ainumber":"5.2","ainame":"Review incoming LS (fm A.I. 3) & new subject discussion papers","tdoc_agenda_sort_order":20460,"status":"noted","reservation_date":"2023-04-19 16:00:17","uploaded":"2023-04-28 08:23:54","revisionof":"","revisedto":"","release":"Rel-15","crspec":"","crspecversion":"","workitem":[{"winame":"TEI15_Test"},{"winame":" 5GS_NR_LTE-UEConTest"}],"crnumber":"","crrevision":"","crcategory":"","tsg_crp":"","lsreplyto":"","lsto":"","Cc":"","lsoriginalls":"","lsreply":"","link":"https:\/\/www.3gpp.org\/ftp\/tsg_ran\/WG5_Test_ex-T1\/TSGR5_99_Incheon\/Docs\/R5-232046.zip","group":"R5","meeting":"R5-99","year":2023,"uicc_affected":"","me_affected":"","ran_affected":"","cn_affected":"","clauses_affected":"","crsinpack":null,"crsinpacknumber":0},
{"name":"R5-232047","title":"LS on clarification of test configurations for CA\/DC MSD requirements","source":"TSG WG RAN4","contact":"Ingbert Sigovich","contact-id":28887,"tdoctype":"LS in","for":"Action","abstract":"A vast amount of CA\/DC band combinations have been introduced since Rel-15. As there is always new channel bandwidth(s) requests for NR bands, which result in an increasing number of bandwidth combination sets (BCSs) of the related NR-CA combinations to be introduced, RAN4 developed the BCS4 and BCS5 from Rel-17, which contain all possible defined channel bandwidths for each band in a band combination to avoid endless new BCSs to be specified.\nAlong with the development of BCS4 and BCS5, RAN4 also discussed and evolved the way of defining the reference sensitivity exceptions (MSD) tables for NR-CA in Rel-17 with the agreed guidance in R4-2210565 (WF on criteria on Rel-17 enhanced MSD table format), and it was agreed that similar principles could be applicable to EN-DC in terms of the evolution of MSD tables proceeding in Rel-18. Particularly, it is assumed that maximum two specified test configurations are expected for harmonic (direct-hit)\/harmonic mixing\/cross band isolation MSD requirements, wherein one is specified under worst case configuration which corresponds to the largest MSD, the other one is optionally specified and could be used to address proponent\u2019s concern on specific CBW of interest.\nWith the limit of maximum two specified test configurations for each MSD type, RAN4 recognized that there is a possibility that the UE might not support the specified worst case configuration, or even not support any of the specified configurations due to the lack of support of the channel bandwidths specified in the test configurations. \nThree scenarios considering the specified test configuration and UE supported BCSs are provided below: \nFor certain MSD mechanism of one band combination\n1)\tUE supports the specified worst case configuration which corresponds to the largest MSD;\n2)\tUE does not support the specified worst case configuration which corresponds to the largest MSD, but the second configuration (if specified) which is an optionally specified one;\n3)\tUE does not support any of the specified configurations.\nGive an example for above scenario 3) for better understanding, in which BCS 0\/1\/2 are introduced for CA_X-Y with below configurations as well as two test configurations for cross band isolation are defined under BCS2 in RAN4 spec, while the UE only supports BCS0 for CA_X-Y.\nCBW for X is {5M,10M}\tBCS0\nCBW for Y is {5M,10M}\t\nCBW for X is {5M,10M,15M}\tBCS1\nCBW for Y is {5M,10M,15M}\t\nCBW for X is {5M,10M,15M, 20M}\tBCS2\nCBW for Y is {5M,10M,15M, 20M}\t\n\nRAN4 would like to respectfully ask RAN5 whether there is any issue on the conformance testing in the above 1) 2) 3) scenarios, and what method can be adopted by RAN5 if identified.\nAdditionally, the following principles as one possible future-proof methodology applicable to Rel-17 and onwards have been discussed in RAN4, which just provide some information on what RAN4 is thinking and no intention to have impact on RAN5\u2019s decision.\nFor certain MSD mechanism of one band combination \n1)\tIn case UE supports the specified worst case configuration which corresponds to the largest MSD, this specified worst case configuration is supposed to be selected for conformance test;\n2)\tIn case UE does not support the specified worst case configuration which corresponds to the largest MSD, but the second configuration (if specified) which is an optionally defined one,  the specified second configuration is supposed be selected for conformance test;\n3)\tIn case UE does not support any of the specified configurations, the worst case configuration the UE supported itself for this band combination could be selected as test configuration and should conform to the largest MSD specified.\n\n2. Actions: RAN4 ask RAN5 to provide feedback for the identified conformance test issue.","secretary_remarks":"","agenda_item_sort_order":21,"ainumber":"5.2","ainame":"Review incoming LS (fm A.I. 3) & new subject discussion papers","tdoc_agenda_sort_order":20470,"status":"noted","reservation_date":"2023-04-19 16:00:17","uploaded":"2023-04-28 08:23:54","revisionof":"","revisedto":"","release":"Rel-17","crspec":"","crspecversion":"","workitem":[{"winame":"NR_newRAT-Core"}],"crnumber":"","crrevision":"","crcategory":"","tsg_crp":"","lsreplyto":"","lsto":"","Cc":"","lsoriginalls":"","lsreply":"","link":"https:\/\/www.3gpp.org\/ftp\/tsg_ran\/WG5_Test_ex-T1\/TSGR5_99_Incheon\/Docs\/R5-232047.zip","group":"R5","meeting":"R5-99","year":2023,"uicc_affected":"","me_affected":"","ran_affected":"","cn_affected":"","clauses_affected":"","crsinpack":null,"crsinpacknumber":0},
{"name":"R5-233220","title":"Discussion on lower humidity limit of test environment in RAN5","source":"ZTE Corporation, Samsung R&D Institute UK","contact":"Zhifeng Ma","contact-id":61569,"tdoctype":"discussion","for":"Endorsement","abstract":"associated with RAN4 response LS R5-232043.","secretary_remarks":"","agenda_item_sort_order":21,"ainumber":"5.2","ainame":"Review incoming LS (fm A.I. 3) & new subject discussion papers","tdoc_agenda_sort_order":32200,"status":"noted","reservation_date":"2023-12-05 17:44:10","uploaded":"2023-05-13 07:15:13","revisionof":"","revisedto":"","release":"","crspec":"","crspecversion":"","workitem":"","crnumber":"","crrevision":"","crcategory":"","tsg_crp":"","lsreplyto":"","lsto":"","Cc":"","lsoriginalls":"","lsreply":"","link":"https:\/\/www.3gpp.org\/ftp\/tsg_ran\/WG5_Test_ex-T1\/TSGR5_99_Incheon\/Docs\/R5-233220.zip","group":"R5","meeting":"R5-99","year":2023,"uicc_affected":"","me_affected":"","ran_affected":"","cn_affected":"","clauses_affected":"","crsinpack":null,"crsinpacknumber":0}]