Cheat sheet
Inside one plenary: TSG SA#112
Singapore, June 2026, in one morning
- Depth
- Overview
- Chapters
- 7
- Reading
- 35 min
- Questions
- 36
- Sources cited
- 133
The shape of it
1 The meeting and its shape
2 How the paperwork is organised
- 3 Reading the agenda, and what the top-level items are for
- 4 The document types and the status words, and what each really decides
3 What it did, and what the record will not say
Keep these in your head
-
1.1 What a plenary of 3GPP SA is, and what it can decide
A plenary decides by writing one word next to a document number. Learning the words is most of learning to read a meeting.
-
2.1 This meeting in numbers
346 documents and 23 agenda items. The meeting is a sorting exercise before it is anything else.
-
3.3 Reading the agenda, and what the top-level items are for
If you only have a minute for a meeting, read the document counts against AI 6 and against the release change-request items. They tell you what the meeting was for.
-
4.1 The document types and the status words, and what each really decides
The type is a request. The status is the answer. Reading the type and assuming the answer is how most people get a meeting wrong.
-
5.2 What the meeting actually did
30 things started, 26 finished, 689 corrections put to the meeting [1] — not all of them let through, since four packs came out only partially approved. A plenary is a turnstile, not a drafting room.
-
6.1 What the numbers say about where the work is going, and what they do not
Documents per release is the clearest single reading of where 3GPP is: 140 for Release 20, 26 for Release 19, 11 for Release 21. One release being built, one being closed, one being scheduled.
-
7.1 How to follow a plenary yourself, and what this record cannot tell you
Start at the document list, not at the report. One page gives you every document, its type, its sender and its outcome; the report is for the handful you then want the story behind.
Easy to get wrong
-
1.5 What a plenary of 3GPP SA is, and what it can decide
"TSG SA decided X" is often wrong even when X really did happen at an SA plenary. Check whether the record says the joint session agreed it. The Release 21 timeline is exactly that case.
-
2.2 This meeting in numbers
A count of documents is not a count of decisions. One pack is one document and can carry more than twenty separate changes; one discussion paper is one document and changes nothing. Never add the two together and call the total "what the meeting did".
-
3.4 Reading the agenda, and what the top-level items are for
An empty agenda item is not a cancelled one. It is a slot kept open, and reading "0 documents" as "3GPP has stopped caring about that" is the most common mistake a newcomer makes with an agenda.
-
4.5 The document types and the status words, and what each really decides
"Noted" is not "accepted". "Endorsed" is not "approved". "Revised" is not "improved". Each of the three sounds like a softer version of a stronger word and is in fact a different outcome.
-
5.4 What the meeting actually did
"The work item was approved" and "the question was settled" are not the same sentence. Here the first is true and the second is not, and the record says so in the next line.
-
7.2 How to follow a plenary yourself, and what this record cannot tell you
The most common error is reading an agenda item's document count as a measure of importance. It is a measure of paperwork. Reading the agenda, and what the top-level items are for has the counts; what they mean is a separate question.
The numbers, and where each came from
Every one was counted out of a file on this machine. Hover a row to read the question that produced it.
- 568 568 people registered for the meeting
- 365 365 people checked in and so kept their voting rights
- 110 110 people registered to attend online
- 30 30 new work items and study items were approved
- 11 11 work items and study items were updated
- 26 26 specifications and reports were approved
- 6 6 specifications and reports were noted for information
- 689 689 individual change requests
- 114 114 specifications were changed
- 4 4 documents ended the meeting 'partially approved'
- 18 18 incoming liaison statements
- 2 2 outgoing liaison statements
- 0 No work item exception sheets were approved
- 346 346 documents at SA#112
- 20 20 different kinds of document
- 62 62 different sources submitted documents
- 23 23 top-level agenda items
- 120 120 documents of type 'CR pack'
- 53 53 documents of type 'WID new'
- 29 29 documents of type 'report'
- 28 28 documents of type 'draft TR'
- 20 20 documents of type 'discussion'
- 18 18 documents of type 'LS in'
- 14 14 documents of type 'CR'
- 13 13 documents of type 'other'
- 10 10 documents of type 'SID new'
- 9 9 documents of type 'SID revised'
- 120 120 change-request packs
- 66 66 documents came from SA WG5
- 57 57 documents came from SA WG3
- 41 41 documents came from SA WG6
- 33 33 documents came from SA WG2
- 28 28 documents came from SA WG4
- 487 487 change requests in packs belong to Rel-20
- 143 143 change requests in packs belong to Rel-19
- 36 36 change requests in packs belong to Rel-18
- 7 7 change requests in packs belong to Rel-17
- 40 40 times the report says 'There were no contributions to this agenda item.'
- 199 199 documents ended the meeting 'approved'
- 68 68 documents ended the meeting 'noted'
- 60 60 documents ended the meeting 'revised'
- 5 5 documents ended the meeting 'postponed'
- 4 4 documents ended the meeting 'endorsed'
- 2 2 documents ended the meeting 'merged'
- 2 2 documents ended the meeting 'withdrawn'
- 1 1 document ended the meeting 'agreed'
- 1 1 document ended the meeting 'replied to'
- 140 140 documents belong to Rel-20
- 26 26 documents belong to Rel-19
- 11 11 documents belong to Rel-21
- 162 162 documents carry no release
- 284 284 of the 346 documents get a paragraph of their own in the report
- 224 224 of the meeting's documents have a machine-written summary
Where to look it up
The 80 named sources it cites, by what they are.
Meeting document 27
SP-260697SP-260663SP-260584SP-260417SP-260696SP-260411SP-260679SP-260387SP-260613SP-260643SP-260595SP-260363SP-260406SP-260407SP-260664SP-260654SP-260692SP-260604SP-260470SP-260544SP-260600SP-260655SP-260372SP-260385SP-260382SP-260361SP-260379
Agenda item 17
Agenda item 1: Opening of the Meeting Tuesday, 09 June 2026, 1400 local timeAgenda item 2: Liaisons StatementsAgenda item 3: Items for early consideration (Please contact the SA Chair in advance)Agenda item 4: Reporting from SA Working Groups, other TSGs, and OthersAgenda item 5: Release PlanningAgenda item 6: Work Item Descriptions, Study Item Descriptions, SpecificationsAgenda item 7: SpecificationsAgenda item 8: Study on 3GPP AI/ML Consistency Alignment (FS_AIML_CAL)Agenda item 9: Study on Modernization of Specification Format and Procedures for 6G (FS_6GSpecs)Agenda item 15: Rel-15 CRsAgenda item 17: Rel-17 CRsAgenda item 18: Rel-18 CRsAgenda item 19: Rel-19 CRsAgenda item 20: Rel-20 CRsAgenda item 21: Project Management & TSG SA owned specificationsAgenda item 22: Any Other BusinessAgenda item 23: Close of Meeting Friday, 12 June 2026, 1730 local time (or earlier)
Quoted wording 17
'The TSG SA Chair was Mr. Puneet Jaine (Intel), The Vice Chairs were Dr. Tao Sun (China Mobile), Ms. LaeYoung Kim (LG Electronics) and Mr. Johannes Achter (Deutsche Telekom). The Secretary was Mr. Maurice Pope (MCC).''The agenda was reviewed and approved.''The meeting was then closed.''The report of meeting SA#111 was approved.''SP-260595 was presented in the Joint session and was agreed.''TSG SA Chair to inform PCG on this issue of 3GPP involvement and legal requirements related to the dataset needed to train the AI model specific to 3GPP work.''It was decided to ask SA WG4, SA WG5 and SA WG6 to also submit ToRs to the next TSG SA meeting and SA WG1, SA WG2 and SA WG3 may update or re-submit the same ToR proposals.''This new WID was approved.''Interested companies are encouraged to demonstrate the use of Forge for 3GPP specifications (e.g. 38.331).''SA WG2 were asked to develop 6G interface names and naming convention, especially for RAN -CN interfaces and report to TSGs in September 2026.''Qualcomm objected to this decision.''This was postponed.''This was endorsed.''- Continue with trial of separated ASN.1 in FS_6GSpecs''It was decided to use '6GC or 6G CN'.''conclusion: checkpoint in Dec.26 for RAN-CN other than connectivity services.''Care should be taken to agree or endorse CRs against frozen releases in the working group level, especially given the existing commercial deployments.'
Specification 12
TS 28.552TS 28.312TS 23.501TS 23.482TS 23.502TS 23.369TS 23.503TS 23.288TS 23.228TS 28.561TS 23.433TS 28.541
Page on the standards body's own site 5
The SA#112 document folderWelcome to TSG SA, revision 1SP-112 draft meeting report, version 0.0.5SP-260361, the SA#112 agenda, version 2TdocsByAgenda, the SA#112 document list
Meeting 1
Summary 1
Where to go from here
- The same subject, quick start — Under an hour, four chapters, the shape of the thing.
- The same subject, in depth — The working reference: every mechanism, every parameter.
- Every question of this course — 36 of them, on one page.
- The final test — 15 questions, 70 per cent to pass.
- Every source behind the course — 150 of them, each with its method.
The raised numbers on this page
- 689 individual change requests — the crspec column of every CR and CR pack row of tdoc for meeting='SP-112', split on spaces and counted. Each token is one change request against one specification, read 2026-08-04