[{"name":"R5-233668","title":"LS response on CA\/DC MSD requirements","source":"TSG WG RAN5","contact":"Ingbert Sigovich","contact-id":28887,"tdoctype":"LS out","for":"Approval","abstract":"RAN5 thanks RAN4 for providing background and status on reference sensitivity exceptions (MSD) topics of defining maximum two specified test configurations for harmonic (direct-hit)\/harmonic mixing\/cross band isolation MSD requirements, wherein one 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 channel bandwidth (CBW) of interest.\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.\nResponse: \nOut of the three scenarios listed in the RAN4 LS, scenarios 1 and 2 are straightforward as it is acceptable to test only a subset of all core requirements. However, scenario 3 would mean that RAN5 defines conformance tests for a requirement that does not exist in TS38.101-1 which is not feasible. In order to enable testing in scenario 3, some additional clarifications would be needed in TS 38.101-1 e.g, in form of a note indicating which requirement to apply in such cases.\n2. Actions: To RAN4: RAN5 ask RAN4 to consider above feedback from RAN5.","secretary_remarks":"","agenda_item_sort_order":649,"ainumber":"5.7","ainame":"Outgoing liaison statements for provisional approval","tdoc_agenda_sort_order":339500,"status":"approved","reservation_date":"2023-05-31 05:19:14","uploaded":"2023-05-31 05:21:17","revisionof":"","revisedto":"","release":"Rel-17","crspec":"","crspecversion":"","workitem":[{"winame":"NR_newRAT-Core"}],"crnumber":"","crrevision":"","crcategory":"","tsg_crp":"","lsreplyto":"","lsto":"TSG WG RAN4","Cc":"","lsoriginalls":"","lsreply":"","link":"https:\/\/www.3gpp.org\/ftp\/tsg_ran\/WG5_Test_ex-T1\/TSGR5_99_Incheon\/Docs\/R5-233668.zip","group":"R5","meeting":"R5-99","year":2023,"uicc_affected":"","me_affected":"","ran_affected":"","cn_affected":"","clauses_affected":"","crsinpack":null,"crsinpacknumber":0},
{"name":"R5-233669","title":"LS on additional UE gain parameters","source":"TSG WG RAN5","contact":"Ingbert Sigovich","contact-id":28887,"tdoctype":"LS out","for":"Approval","abstract":"Discussion paper R5-233642 has been presented at RAN5#99. RAN5 investigated the alignment of the rough and fine beams as well as the difference in UE gain for different frequencies and the additional UE gain related parameters added to TS 38.133 in clauses B.2.1.5.2 and B.2.1.5.3 as well as in the measurement accuracy test cases in Table A.5.7.1.2.3-2 and Table A.7.7.1.2.3-2. \nRAN5 came to the below conclusion and seeks further guidance from RAN4. \n(1)\tThe discussion in RAN4 that lead to additional UE gain parameters being introduced targeted FR2 inter-frequency measurement accuracy test cases A.5.7.1.2 and A.7.7.1.2.\n(2)\tIt is inconclusive if the parameters introduced in TS 38.133 in clauses B.2.1.5.2 and B.2.1.5.3, namely the UE gain difference between inter-frequencies Ginter  and additional gain reduction D, is applicable only to measurement accuracy test cases A.5.7.1.2 and A.7.7.1.2, or should it affect other test cases as well.\nIn RAN5 understanding the fact that the parameters are specified in the Annex B makes them applicable to all relevant test cases. For UE gain difference between inter-frequencies Ginter it is FR2 inter-frequency relative measurement test cases, and in case of additional gain reduction D it is all FR2 cases where UE is using rough beams in beam peak direction. \nOn the other hand, gain reduction D has been specified in Table A.7.7.1.2.3-2 (A.5.7.1.2.3-2) for relative accuracy requirements and is missing in Table A.7.7.1.2.3-1 (A.5.7.1.2.3-1) for the absolute accuracy, which may suggest that RAN4 intention was to introduce the UE Gain reduction D only for SS-RSRP relative accuracy test requirement for this particular case where UE is comparing the signal coming from a beam peak direction and signal coming from spherical coverage direction. \n\nRAN5 has the following questions:\nQ1: Is the D parameter applicable only to SS-RSRP relative accuracy test requirement in test cases A.5.7.1.2 and A.7.7.1.2 or it should be also applied to SS-RSRP absolute accuracy test requirement in A.5.7.1.2 and A.7.7.1.2, and other test cases as well?\n\nQ2: Is the Ginter parameter applicable only to SS-RSRP relative accuracy test requirement in FR2 inter-frequency measurement accuracy test cases A.5.7.1.2 and A.7.7.1.2 or it should be also applied to other FR2 inter-frequency test cases as well?\n2. Actions: To RAN4: RAN5 asks RAN4 to consider the observations shared in this LS as well as to provide feedback on the questions above.","secretary_remarks":"","agenda_item_sort_order":649,"ainumber":"5.7","ainame":"Outgoing liaison statements for provisional approval","tdoc_agenda_sort_order":339500,"status":"approved","reservation_date":"2023-05-31 05:19:14","uploaded":"2023-05-31 05:21:17","revisionof":"","revisedto":"","release":"Rel-15","crspec":"","crspecversion":"","workitem":[{"winame":"TEI15_Test"},{"winame":" 5GS_NR_LTE-UEConTest"}],"crnumber":"","crrevision":"","crcategory":"","tsg_crp":"","lsreplyto":"","lsto":"TSG WG RAN4","Cc":"","lsoriginalls":"","lsreply":"","link":"https:\/\/www.3gpp.org\/ftp\/tsg_ran\/WG5_Test_ex-T1\/TSGR5_99_Incheon\/Docs\/R5-233669.zip","group":"R5","meeting":"R5-99","year":2023,"uicc_affected":"","me_affected":"","ran_affected":"","cn_affected":"","clauses_affected":"","crsinpack":null,"crsinpacknumber":0},
{"name":"R5-233670","title":"LS on RRM test cases with testability issues","source":"TSG WG RAN5","contact":"Ingbert Sigovich","contact-id":28887,"tdoctype":"LS out","for":"Approval","abstract":"In RAN5#99, R5-232660 [1] was discussed. This paper presents a list of LTE\/FR1+FR2 test cases where there is one or more testability issues caused by uncalibrated OTA link, as agreed by RAN4 in [2] and [3].\nDuring the discussion in RAN5, the list presented in [1] was endorsed. RAN5 would like to bring to RAN4 attention of this list specified in [1].\nIf RAN4 agrees with the RAN5 assessment regarding the list of test cases affected by OTA testability issues, RAN5 kindly requests RAN4 to consider this list to be included in TS 38.133 clause A.3.13A to avoid maintaining 2 separate lists.\n2. Actions: To RAN4 group: RAN5 asks RAN4 to consider the list of test cases affected by testability issues included in [1] to be included in TS 38.133 clause A.3.13A.","secretary_remarks":"","agenda_item_sort_order":649,"ainumber":"5.7","ainame":"Outgoing liaison statements for provisional approval","tdoc_agenda_sort_order":339500,"status":"available","reservation_date":"2023-05-31 05:19:14","uploaded":"2023-05-31 05:21:17","revisionof":"","revisedto":"","release":"Rel-15","crspec":"","crspecversion":"","workitem":[{"winame":"TEI15_Test"},{"winame":" 5GS_NR_LTE-UEConTest"}],"crnumber":"","crrevision":"","crcategory":"","tsg_crp":"","lsreplyto":"","lsto":"TSG WG RAN4","Cc":"","lsoriginalls":"","lsreply":"","link":"https:\/\/www.3gpp.org\/ftp\/tsg_ran\/WG5_Test_ex-T1\/TSGR5_99_Incheon\/Docs\/R5-233670.zip","group":"R5","meeting":"R5-99","year":2023,"uicc_affected":"","me_affected":"","ran_affected":"","cn_affected":"","clauses_affected":"","crsinpack":null,"crsinpacknumber":0},
{"name":"R5-233671","title":"LS on signal variance in FR2 multiple AoA tests","source":"TSG WG RAN5","contact":"Ingbert Sigovich","contact-id":28887,"tdoctype":"LS out","for":"Approval","abstract":"In RAN5#99, R5-232673 [1] has been discussed. Following observations were raised impacting TS 38.133 2AoA RLM test cases in A.5.5.1.1, A.5.5.1.2, A.5.5.1.5, A.5.5.1.6, A.7.5.1.1, A.7.5.1.2, A.7.5.1.5 and A.7.5.1.6:\n(1)\tFading profile TDLA30-75 low presents a difference in PAPR of approximately 4dB when compared to AWGN which makes the already low configured SNR very close to the Qin and Qout thresholds.\n(2)\tBalanced signal across both Rx is not guaranteed by the EIS positioning procedure proposed in TS 38.521-2 [2] section K.1.2 for testing.\nRLM 2AoA test cases are very sensitive to both SNR imbalance and fluctuations. The additional signal variation due to fading makes the already low configured SNR very close to the Qin and Qout thresholds. Additionally, the imbalance in signal across the 2Rx makes it even worse which leads to unpredictable test case outcome.\nIf RAN4 agrees with the RAN5 assessment regarding observation (1) above, RAN5 would like RAN4 to kindly answer below question.\n\nQ1: Can the mentioned RLM FR2 test cases be revised to address observation (1) above? one potential option provided in R5-232673 [1]. Please note RAN5 is in parallel working to resolve observation (2)\n2. Actions: To RAN4 group: RAN5 asks RAN4 to consider the observation shared in this LS as well as to provide feedback on question Q1 above.","secretary_remarks":"","agenda_item_sort_order":649,"ainumber":"5.7","ainame":"Outgoing liaison statements for provisional approval","tdoc_agenda_sort_order":339600,"status":"available","reservation_date":"2023-05-31 05:19:15","uploaded":"2023-05-31 05:21:17","revisionof":"","revisedto":"","release":"Rel-15","crspec":"","crspecversion":"","workitem":[{"winame":"TEI15_Test"},{"winame":" 5GS_NR_LTE-UEConTest"}],"crnumber":"","crrevision":"","crcategory":"","tsg_crp":"","lsreplyto":"","lsto":"TSG WG RAN4","Cc":"","lsoriginalls":"","lsreply":"","link":"https:\/\/www.3gpp.org\/ftp\/tsg_ran\/WG5_Test_ex-T1\/TSGR5_99_Incheon\/Docs\/R5-233671.zip","group":"R5","meeting":"R5-99","year":2023,"uicc_affected":"","me_affected":"","ran_affected":"","cn_affected":"","clauses_affected":"","crsinpack":null,"crsinpacknumber":0},
{"name":"R5-233672","title":"LS on clarifications for Non-Terrestrial Networks","source":"TSG WG RAN5","contact":"Ingbert Sigovich","contact-id":28887,"tdoctype":"LS out","for":"Discussion","abstract":"?","secretary_remarks":"","agenda_item_sort_order":649,"ainumber":"5.7","ainame":"Outgoing liaison statements for provisional approval","tdoc_agenda_sort_order":339700,"status":"available","reservation_date":"2023-05-31 05:19:15","uploaded":"2023-08-15 12:51:05","revisionof":"","revisedto":"","release":"Rel-17","crspec":"","crspecversion":"","workitem":"","crnumber":"","crrevision":"","crcategory":"","tsg_crp":"","lsreplyto":"","lsto":"TSG WG RAN4","Cc":"","lsoriginalls":"","lsreply":"","link":"https:\/\/www.3gpp.org\/ftp\/tsg_ran\/WG5_Test_ex-T1\/TSGR5_99_Incheon\/Docs\/R5-233672.zip","group":"R5","meeting":"R5-99","year":2023,"uicc_affected":"","me_affected":"","ran_affected":"","cn_affected":"","clauses_affected":"","crsinpack":null,"crsinpacknumber":0}]