[{"name":"S2-2100015","title":"LS from RAN WG3: Reply LS on NAS Non delivery for RRC_INACTIVE state","source":"RAN WG3","contact":"Jiancheng SUN","contact-id":62128,"tdoctype":"LS in","for":"Action","abstract":"RAN WG3 thanks SA WG2 for the LS on NAS Non delivery for RRC Inactive state. For the second answer, RAN WG3 further discussed how to inform AMF the non-delivery of the non-PDU session related NAS PDU received in the 'PDU Session Resource Setup' and 'Initial Context Setup'. For 'PDU Session Resource Setup', some companies in RAN WG3 still doubt if the scenario is valid, especially considering the following statement in TS 23.502 section 4.2.3.2: 'If the Service Request procedure is triggered by the Network (as described in clause 4.2.3.3) while the UE is in CM-CONNECTED state, only N2 SM information received from SMF is included in the N2 Request.' Question 1: For a UE in RRC_INACTIVE state, is there any use case for AMF to piggyback a non-PDU session related NAS PDU in PDU SESSION RESOURE SETUP REQUEST? For 'Initial Context Setup', the scenario is confirmed in RAN WG3, but we have not reached the consensus on how to inform AMF the non-delivery of the non-PDU session related NAS-PDU in the 'Initial Context Setup Request'. Here are two candidate solutions: - Solution 1: Use NAS NON DELIVERY INDICATION message to indicate the failure of the NAS delivery. - Solution 2: Use the 'Initial Context Setup failure' to implicitly indicate the failure of the NAS delivery. Question 2: Which solution is preferred to inform AMF the non-delivery of the non-PDU session related NAS-PDU in the 'Initial Context Setup Request'?. Action: RAN WG3 would like to further ask SA WG2 the following questions: Q1\/ For a UE in RRC_INACTIVE state, is there any use case for AMF to piggyback a non-PDU session related NAS PDU in PDU SESSION RESOURE SETUP REQUEST? Q2\/ Which solution is preferred to inform AMF the non-delivery of the non-PDU session related NAS-PDU in the 'Initial Context Setup Request'?","secretary_remarks":"Revision of postponed S2-2009100 from S2#142E. Responses drafted in S2-2100251, S2-2100297, S2-2100676 and S2-2100698. Moved to 4.3. Postponed","agenda_item_sort_order":7,"ainumber":"4.3","ainame":"Items for further discussion after 4.X deadline","tdoc_agenda_sort_order":10880,"status":"postponed","reservation_date":"2021-01-13 10:03:18","uploaded":"2021-01-13 14:55:02","revisionof":"S2-2009100","revisedto":"","release":"Rel-15","crspec":"","crspecversion":"","workitem":"","crnumber":"","crrevision":"","crcategory":"","tsg_crp":"","lsreplyto":"","lsto":"SA WG2","Cc":"CT WG4","lsoriginalls":"R3-207170","lsreply":"","link":"https:\/\/www.3gpp.org\/ftp\/tsg_sa\/WG2_Arch\/TSGS2_143e_Electronic\/Docs\/S2-2100015.zip","group":"S2","meeting":"S2-143-e","year":2021,"uicc_affected":null,"me_affected":null,"ran_affected":null,"cn_affected":null,"clauses_affected":null,"crsinpack":null,"crsinpacknumber":0}]