{"text_format":"1","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":1,"sheets":["AgendaWithTdocAllocation_2021-0"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":0,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"AgendaWithTdocAllocation_2021-0","index":0,"n_rows":812,"n_cols":14,"rows_kept":812,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Agenda ","Topic ","TDoc ","Title ","Source ","Notes","Type ","For ","Avail ","Treated ","Decision ","Wdrn ","Replaced-by ","Replaces "]
[1,"Agenda and Meeting Objectives ","S3‑211350 ","Agenda ","SA WG3 Chair ",null,"agenda ","  ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211352 ","Process for SA3#103e meeting ","SA WG3 Chair ",null,"other ","  ","Yes ","Yes","revised ","No ","S3‑211989 ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211354 ","Process and agenda presentation for SA3#103-e ","SA3 VC ",null,"other ","Information ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","r12","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211989 ","Process for SA3#103e meeting ","SA WG3 Vice Chairs ",null,"other ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ",null,"S3‑211352 "]
[2,"Meeting Reports ","S3‑211351 ","Report from SA3#102Bis-e meeting ","MCC ",">>CC_1<<\nproposed to approval [1st challenge deadline]\n[VF] suggest to minutes in this meeting about thanks for Noamen's hard work and good luck for his future adventure\n[MCC] confirms to note Noamen's contribution in report\n>>CC_1<<","report ","  ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211353 ","Report from last SA ","SA WG3 Chair ",">>CC_1<<\nproposed to note [1st challenge deadline]\n>>CC_1<<","report ","  ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211361 ","Report from SA3#102e ","MCC ",">>CC_1<<\nproposed to approval [1st challenge deadline]\n>>CC_1<<","report ","  ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
[3,"Reports and Liaisons from other Groups ","S3‑211368 ","AMF transparency for SOR ","C1-207736 ",">>CC_5<<\nHuawei] presented the LS.\nChair] propose to take all the TDoC of \"sor\" group to be taken together\nChair] is reply LS needed\nHuawei] can reply SA3 work progress\n[Vodafone] is it required to send the LS\n[Ericsson] based on the progress in this meeting we can decide the LS\n\n>>CC_5<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211369 ","Reply LS on AMF transparency for SOR ","C4- 211701 ",">>CC_5<<\nHuawei: presented the LS.\n>>CC_5<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211872 ","Reply LS on changes to SoR ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",">>CC_5<<\n[Huawei] presented the contribution\n>>CC_5<<","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211881 ","Clarification to SoR transparent container ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",">>CC_5<<\n[Ericsson] like to have e-mail discussion \n>>CC_5<<\n[MCC] Suggests changes in CR cover\n[Huawei] Will update in the agreed version","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211377 ","LS on Changes to SoR Delivery Mechanism ","C4-205696 ",">>CC_5<<\n[Ericsson]: presented the LS.\n>>CC_5<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211440 ","LS on integrity protection between the UE and the HPLMN of additional fields in SOR transparent container carrying SOR acknowledgement ","C1-212523 ",">>CC_5<<\n[Ericsson]: presented the LS.\n>>CC_5<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211750 ","Discussion on integrity protection between the UE and the HPLMN of additional fields in SOR transparent container carrying SOR acknowledgement ","Ericsson ",">>CC_5<<\n[Ericsson]: presented the discussion paper\n[Huawei] agreed the need for integrity protection\n[Vodafone] feature enhancements are not necessary OTA provides both encryption and integrity protection\n[Thales] confirms OTA can address the issue\n[Vodafone] like to provide the comments in e-mail\n[Ericsson] like to have e-mail discussions\n[NTT DoCoMo] particular doc to have discussions\n[Chair] S3-211750\n>>CC_5<<\n[Huawei] request clearing the issuesfirst. Agrees that the integrity protection between the UE and HPLMN is needed\n[Vodafone]  This information is already protected so no new integrity mechanism is needed.","discussion ","Discussion ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211751 ","[Draft] Reply-LS on integrity protection between the UE and the HPLMN of additional fields in SOR transparent container carrying SOR acknowledgement ","Ericsson ","[Vodafoe]  objects to the LS is its current form\n[Huawei]  perfers to only send the LS reply after SA3has concluded on the backward compatible mechnism.\n[Ericsson] still believe that integrity protection is needed for the SoR header in the ACK message\n[Qualcomm] Asks for clarification\n[Ericsson] provides clarification\n[THALES] asks clarification\n[Huawei] provides clarification to Thales\n[Qualcomm] adds further comments\n[THALES] no need to specify in SA3 a new mechanism enabling intetrity protection between the UE and the HPLMN. \n[Ericsson] provides clarification","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211751-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211407 ","256-bit algorithms based on SNOW 3G or SNOW V ","ETSI SAGE ",">>CC_5<<\n[Vodafone] presented the LS.\n>>CC_5<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","open","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211530 ","Discussion document on replies to ETSI SAGE ","VODAFONE Group Plc ",">>CC_5<<\n[Vodafone] presented the contribution\n>>CC_5<<","discussion ","Information ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ",null,"DRAFT Response LS on 256-bit algorithms based on SNOW 3G or SNOW V ","VODAFONE Group Plc ",">>CC_5<<\n[Vodafone] presented the contribution\n[NCSC] supports this contribution\n[Chair] 1st challenge deadline?\n[Qualcomm] might have comments\n[Ericsson] has contribution on the same topic, to be discussed together\n>>CC_5<<\n[Vodafone] provides r1\n[Qualcomm] Suggests further modification\n[Ericsson] proposes minor updates\n[Vodafone] provides r2\n[Vodafone] provides r3\n[Ericsson] fine with r3\n[CATT] objects to r3, there is no consensus on such description and action of SA3\n[Vodafone] asks the reson behind CATT's objection\n[Huawei] r3 not acceptable\n[Ericsson] provides clarification and suggests reformulation of texts\n[Huawei] respons to Vodafone\n[Vodafone] comments on prolonging reply to be sent to SAGE\n[NTT DoCoMo] wouldn't object to having SNOW-V as a candidate for the time being (we need to complete evaluation before committing to it)\n[Qualcomm] fine with r3. clarifies that this reply LS is requesting SAGE to prepare SNOW-V based 256-bit algorithms. Once SAGE provides the candidate algorithm sets, SA3 will still have opportunity to evaluate and decide whether to accept it.\n[Vodafone] provides r4 to capture Huaweis concern\n[Huawei] proposes to note the contribution for this meeting and use r4 as baseline for future’s discussion.","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","available","No ","draft_S3-211497-r3","  extended deadline"]
["  ","  ","S3‑211992 ","Discussion on 256-bit algorithms based on SNOW 3G or SNOW V ","Ericsson, AT&T, BT plc, Deutsche Telekom AG ",">>CC_5<<\n[Ericsson] presented the contribution\n[CATT] could not understand the contribution details, question for clarification\n[Vodafone] SAGE is inline with response from Vodafone. Need to decide way forward\n[Ericsson]Like to provide more details later. SNOW V preforms better in software.\n[Vodafone] like to have reference on academic researches mentioned by CATT\n[CATT] need more time on this topic\n[Huawei] currently it is harder to make a decision, as UE side performance need to be studied\n[Vodafone] good choice to include accelerators going forward \n[CATT]\n[NTT DoCoMo] like to details on the chipsets that has constrains. Like to have a timeline to decide\n[Ericsson] like decision as to have internal plans for deployments\n[Chair] DO we need to continue the discussion in 1497. If no conclusion is made, we need to have conf call on this topic before the next meeting \n>>CC_5<<\n[Qualcomm] proposes to note","discussion ","Discussion ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212025 ","Reply LS on 256-bit algorithms based on SNOW 3G or SNOW V ","Ericsson, AT&T, BT plc, Deutsche Telekom AG ","[Qualcomm] merge with 1497\n[Ericsson] fine with merging","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","draft_S3-211497-r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211408 ","Choice of cryptographic algorithm in 256-bit Milenage ","ETSI SAGE ",">>CC_5<<\n[Vodafone] presented the LS. Happy to merge 1500 and 1438\n[Thales] supports option3 and not fine with option 1 & 2\n[Vodafone] have comments on 1438 \n>>CC_5<<\n>>CC_8<<\nEricsson presents there are 2 companies objects.\nChair asks whether needs to extend time for agreement\nEricsson prefers to extends\n>>CC_8<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","replied to","No ","draft_S3-211500-r2"]
["  ","  ","S3‑211438 ","Reply LS on choice of cryptographic algorithm in 256-bit Milenage ","THALES, Idemia ","[Vodafone] Propose to merge with 1500 and to have disucssion under 1500.\n[Vodafone] provides observations and asks questions for clarification\n[Thales] provides answers to vodafone \n[Vodafone] adds further comments\n[THALES] fine to merge S3-211438 and S3-211500 with S3-211500 as baseline, provides clarification\n\n","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","draft_S3-211500-r1"]
["  ","  ","S3‑211498 ","Alternative 1 DRAFT Response LS on 256-bit Milenage ","VODAFONE Group Plc ",">>CC_8<<\nThales shows objection 1498 and 1499\n>>CC_8<<\n[THALES] objects this contribution. Thales recommends option 3.\n\n\n \n","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211499 ","Alternative 2 DRAFT Response LS on 256-bit Milenage ","VODAFONE Group Plc ",">>CC_8<<\nThales shows objection 1498 and 1499\n>>CC_8<<\n[THALES] objects this contribution. Thales recommends option 3.","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211500 ","Alternative 3 DRAFT Response LS on 256-bit Milenage ","VODAFONE Group Plc ","[Vodafone] Propose to merge 1438 in 1500 and to have disucssion under 1500.\n[THALES] provides r1\n>>CC_8<<\nThales shows objection 1498 and 1499\n>>CC_8<<\n[Vodafone] r1 is fine\n[THALES] fine with r2\n\n","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211500-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211378 ","LS on the Security consideration to support L2TP with CUPS ","C4-210171 ",">>CC_5<<\n[Ericsson] presented the LS\n\n>>CC_5<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","replied to","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211379 ","LS on the support of L2TP with CUPS ","C4-211624 ",">>CC_5<<\n[Ericsson] presented the LS. Propose to Note it as there is no action to SA3\n[Chair] to be Noted, against the W2-1st challenge deadline\n>>CC_5<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211416 ","Reply LS on the support of L2TP with CUPS ","S2-2103232 ",">>CC_5<<\n[Ericsson] presented the LS. Propose to Note it as there is no action to SA3\n[Chair] to be Noted, against the W2-1st challenge deadline\n>>CC_5<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211430 ","Reply LS on the support of L2TP with CUPS ","C3-212569 ",">>CC_5<<\n[Ericsson] presented the LS. Propose to Note it as there is no action to SA3\n[Chair] to be Noted, against the W2-1st challenge deadline\n>>CC_5<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211745 ","Discussion on Security consideration to support L2TP with CUPS ","Ericsson ",">>CC_5<<\n[Ericsson] presented the contribution. Propose to use IPsec if supported\n>>CC_5<<","discussion ","Discussion ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","draft_S3-211746-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211746 ","[DRAFT] Reply-LS on the Security consideration to support L2TP with CUPS ","Ericsson ","[Ericsson] provides r1\n[Huawei] fine with r1","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211746-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211884 ","Draft Reply LS on Security consideration to support L2TP with CUPS ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",">>CC_5<<\n[Huawei] presented the contribution. Propose to use IPsec . Simple than 1745.\n[Chair] Draft LSs can be merged. \n[Ericsson] To simplify 1745 to be baseline.\n[Chair] Ericsson to hold the pen  \n>>CC_5<<\n[Ericsson] to be merged into 1746\n[Huawei] Fine to merge","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","draft_S3-211746-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211370 ","LS on extraterritorial use of MCC for satellite access ","C1-210439 ",">>CC_5<<\n[Qualcomm] presented the LS\n[Chair] to be Noted, against the W2-1st challenge deadline\n>>CC_5<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211371 ","Reply LS on extraterritorial use of MCC for satellite access ","S1-210358 ",">>CC_5<<\n[Chair] Do we need to have reply, as SA3 is in Cc.\n[NTT DoCoMo] Does it has impact on PARLOS\n[Chair] PARLOS is specific to particular region\n[Ericsson] PARLOS is for 4G\n[Chair] to be Noted, against the W2-1st challenge deadline\n>>CC_5<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211380 ","LS on Header Enrichment for HTTPS in PFCP ","C4-211662 ",">>CC_5<<\n[ZTE] presented the LS\n\n>>CC_5<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","replied to","No ","draft_S3-211900-r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211540 ","Reply LS on Header Enrichment for HTTPS in PFCP ","ZTE Corporation ",">>CC_5<<\n[ZTE] presented the contribution\n\n>>CC_5<<\n[Ericsson] merge this contribution (1540) into 1900\n[ZTE] confirms the merger","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","  S3-211900","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211900 ","Draft Reply LS on Header Enrichment for HTTPS in PFCP ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",">>CC_5<<\n[Huawei] presented the contribution\n[Ericsson] No fine to control plane to protect via HTTPs, there should be other ways\n[Chair] propose to continue the discussion in 1900\n>>CC_5<<\n[Ericsson] propose updates\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Ericsson] comments\n[Huawei] concern on whether info can be exposed to the outside via the TLS handshake\n[Ericsson] we can do both: ask for explanation which sensitive information is to be transported, and point out that the TLS handshake may not be the correct way to transport it.\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Ericsson] uploads r2\n[Huawei] prefer to use r1\n[Ericsson] provides clarification\n[Huawei] provides r3\n[Ericsson] fine with r3","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211900-r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211387 ","LS on UE location aspects in NTN ","R2-2102055 ",">>CC_5<<\n[Thales] presented the LS\n\n>>CC_5<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","replied to","No ","draft_S3-211639-r4","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211411 ","Reply LS on UE location aspects in NTN ","S3i210282 ",">>CC_5<<\n[Thales] presented the LS\n\n>>CC_5<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211419 ","Reply to LS on UE location aspects in NTN ","S2-2103550 ",">>CC_5<<\n[Thales] presented the LS\n\n>>CC_5<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211639 ","Reply LS on UE location aspects in NTN ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",">>CC_5<<\n[Huawei] presented the LS\n[Ericsson] Propose to generalise the Huawei reply\n[CATT] have different view to Huawei, like to have e-mail discussion\n[Thales] Like to have answer for Question 1 from SA3, how privacy could be achieved in absence of AS security context?\n[Intel] Need clarification on SA3-Li response, why it is not reliable\n[Chair] to continue the discussion in S3-211639 \n>>CC_5<<\n[Xiaomi] request clarification before being accepted\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Xiaomi] provides comments\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Xiaomi] provides comments\n[Tencastle] provides comments\n[Xiaomi] Provides further comments\n[Intel] provides comments\n[Futurewei] Provides comments\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Xiaomi] Asks further clarification\n[Qualcomm] proposes updates to text\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[CATT] fine with r1. No need to reply to Q1, because SA2 has already given a clear conclusion.\n[Ericsson] provides comments\n[THALES] suggests updates to Q2 response\n[Tencastle] supports Ericsson's proposed simplification\n[BT] Supports Ericssons comments\n[THALES] suggests updates\n[Futurewei] supports Ericssons wording\n[THALES] supports Ericssons wording\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Xiaomi] suggests updates, or postpone the LS\n[Huawei] disagrees to postpone\n[THALES] provides comments\n[CATT] LS should be sent in this meeting\n[Tencastle] asks Xiaomi if they support to send the LS\n>>CC_8<<\nHuawei would like to ask Xiaomi's position\nXiaomi provides comments and revision in email already\n>>CC_8<<\n[ Xiaomi] provides r3\n[Ericsson] asks for clarification\n[Tencastle] fine with r3\n[Xiaomi] provides clarification and uploads r4\n[Huawei] fine with r4\n[CATT] fine with r4\n[QC] fine with r4\n[Ericsson] fine with r4","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211639-r4","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211372 ","LS on broadcasting from other PLMN in case of Disaster Condition ","C1-211189 ",">>CC_5<<\n[LG] presented the LS. Can merge 1523 and 1717\n\n>>CC_5<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","replied to","No ","draft_S3-211523-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211523 ","Reply LS to LS on broadcasting from other PLMN in case of Disaster Condition ","LG Electronics Inc. ",">>CC_5<<\n[LG] presented the Contribution\n[Chair] to continue the discussion in 1523 and LG to hold the pen\n[Huawei] With FBS, it is possible to have MitM attacks, we need to mention it\n[Ericsson] Fine to merge. Like to mention some condition when it is allowed, like to mention the points when it is  allowed\n>>CC_5<<\n[LG] S3-211523 is revised to merge with S3-211717 and to add more details. Provides r1\n[Apple] propose modifications\n[Huawei] R2 is available in the draft folder \n[LG] provides clarifications and r3\n[Qualcomm] suggests to update the reply LS\n[LG] provides r4\n\n>>CC_7<<\n[LG] to put it for 3rd challenge deadline\n[Chair] approval against W2-3rd challenge deadline\n[NTT DoCoMo] Answer to Q1 need further discussion\n[Chair] to continue the discussion\n>>CC_7<<\n[LG] asks suggestion from Ericsson and addresses NTT Docomos comment from conf call\n[Ericsson] provides r5\n[Interdigital] shares same view as Ericsson\n[Huawei provides clarification to interdigital\n[NTT Docomo] suggests changes\n[Apple] provides concrete proposal\n[LG] provides r6\n[Huawei] provides r7 with updates\n[NTT Docomo] adds further comments\n[LG] fine with r7\n>>CC_8<<\nLGE presents there is r7 and may reach consensus soon.\nHuawei doesn't agree. \nChair asks whether needs to be extended.\nHuawei would like to try in this week and request to extend if needed tomorrow.\n>>CC_8<<\n[Ericsson] comments on r7 and uploads r8 with updates\n[LG] asks Ericsson and Huawei if deletion of example attack in Q1 is fine\n[Interdigital] provides furtehr comments\n[Huawei] provides r9\n[Ericsson] fine with r9\n[Interdigital] fine with r9\n[NTT Docomo] provides r10\n[LG] disagrees with r10 and prefers r9\n[QC] prefers r10\n[Apple] uploads r11 with updates\n[QC] r11 not acceptable\n[Apple] asks QC which change is not acceptable\n[LG] can live with r11\n[QC] adds further comments\n[LG] explains the concern regarding r10\n[QC] provides further comments\n[LG] provides clarification\n[Huawei] prefers r10\n[Ericsson] asks clarification from NTT Docomo\n[LG] adds comments\n[LG] provides r12\n[Ericsson] fine with r12\n[Huawei] fine with r12\n[Apple] fine with r12\n[Qualcomm] fine with r12\n[LG] if no more comments r12 can be approved","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211523-r12","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211716 ","MINT-Discussion paper on MINT ","Apple ",">>CC_5<<\n[Apple] presented the Contribution\n\n>>CC_5<<\n[Ericsson] proposes to note","discussion ","Endorsement ","Yes ","Yes","open","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211717 ","MINT-draft Reply LS to CT1 on MINT. ","Apple ",">>CC_5<<\n[Apple] presented the Contribution\n\n>>CC_5<<\n[Ericsson] document is merged into S3-211523\n","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","S3-211523","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211376 ","LS on Secondary AUTH for 5GS interworking with EPS ","C3-210377 ",">>CC_5<<\n[Ericsson] presented the LS\n\n>>CC_5<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","replied to","No ","draft_S3-211747-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211397 ","Reply LS on Secondary AUTH for 5GS interworking with EPS ","S2-2101305 ",">>CC_5<<\n[Ericsson] presented the LS\n\n>>CC_5<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","draft_S3-211747-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211747 ","[DRAFT] Reply-LS on Secondary AUTH for 5GS interworking with EPS ","Ericsson ",">>CC_5<<\n[Ericsson] presented the contribution\n[Interdigital] like to discuss along with PAP/CHAP discussions\n[Huawei] CT WG has PAP/CHAP use in 5G. No need for WID in SA3 to discuss PAP/CHAP\n[Huawei] Question on Q3\n[Ericsson] provides clarification\n[Chair] to continue the discussion in 1747\n>>CC_5<<\n[Ericsson] suggests companies to provide comments to revise\n[Huawei] asks for updates\n[Ericsson] provides r1\n[Huawei] fine with r1","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211747-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211426 ","LS to SA3 on Small data transmissions ","R2-2104401 ",">>CC_5<<\n[Interdigital] presented the LS\n>>CC_5<<\n[Interdigital] initites e-ail discussion and propose to “holding the pen” for the outgoing LS\n[Huawei] provides comments\n[ZTE] comments\n[Intel] do not agree with Huawei. Provides further comments\n>>CC_7<<\n[Ericsson] like to provide only requirments to RAN2\n[NTT] can provide the issue in doing so and principle and details what possible attack is possible\n[Intel] Not to mention whether it is corner case or not\n[Apple] agree with Ericsson on providing the requiremnt guidance\n[Huawei]  agree with Ericsson on providing the requiremnt guidance\n[Chair] Shall we go ahead with Ericsson's proposal? \n>>CC_7<<\n[Huawei] rpovides comments\n[Interdigital] provides r1\n[Ericsson] provides r2\n[Interdigital] fine with r2\n[Huawei] provides r2. deleting solution specific parts\n[Apple] provides r4\n[QC] provides comments on r4\n[Apple] provides clarification\n[QC] missed the update\n[Intel] uploaded r5 and r6\n[Huawei] uploads r7 taking r6 as base\n[Interdifital] provides r8\n[ZTE] provides r9 including potential issues\n[Huawei[] not fine with r9\n[CATT] provides r10\n[Interdigital] r10 not found\n[Interdigital] adds further comments\n[Interdigital] provides r11\n>>CC_8<<\nInterdigital present the current status. latest version is r11. would like to answer the question separately.\nEricsson is not convinced in r11 and provide comments\nChair asks whether it is help to extend to next week\nEricsson comments the content is out of yesterday's discussion/consensus\nIntedigital clarifies and proposes way forward\nApple comments\nEricsson clarifies\nChair asks Ericsson to answer the question to find a way forward\nChair think SA3 can answer the 2 question\nInterdigital doesn't think there is consensus on first and second question, but may be answer 3rd question\nChair proposes to extend one week for further discussion\nInterdigital is not available in next week, proposes to postpone in next meeting, if fails to reach consensus today and part of tomorrow.\n>>CC_8<<\n[Ericsson] cannot accept r11\n[Interdigital] if r11 is not acceptable then we need to state that SA3 has not reached an agreement on the security issue.\n[Ericsson] provides comments\n[Intel] provides r12\n[Interdigital] provides r13\n[Intel] fine with r13\n[Interdigital] asks for other companies confirmation\n[Huawei] proposes way forwards\n[ZTE] fine with r11 or r13.\n[Interdigital] asks HW if ok with r13\n[Intel] fine with r13\n[Huawei] provides r14\n[CATT] fine with r11\n[Ericsson] suggests to extend discussion to next week and arrange conf call to decide on content of the LS\n[Chair] please work towards to agree by todays deadline as many delegates won't be available next week, otherwise we will postpone it to next meeting\n[Ericcson] proposes concrete text\n[Interdigital] adds comments","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","postponed","No ","r15 is the latest draft.","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211539 ","Discussion on security of Small data transmissions ","ZTE Corporation ",">>CC_5<<\n[ZTE] presented the contribution\n\n>>CC_5<<\n[Ericsson] proposes to note","discussion ","Discussion ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211541 ","Reply LS on Small data transmissions ","ZTE Corporation ","[Ericsson] proposes to note","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","No","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211549 ","Discussion on Security Issues with SDT ","Intel K.K. ",">>CC_5<<\n[Intel] presented the contribution\n\n>>CC_5<<\n[Ericsson] proposes to note","discussion ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211545 ","Reply LS on Small data transmission ","Intel K.K. ","[Ericsson] proposes to note","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","No","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211660 ","Reply LS on Security of Small Data Transmissions ","Huawei, HiSilicon ",">>CC_5<<\n[Huawei] presented the contribution\n[Apple] Supports 1660 and propose it as baseline\n[Ericsson] is it backward and to check the input parameters and have further discussion\n[Intel] Not to use 1660, instead 1539 is fine\n[Interdigital] like to hold the pen\n[ZTE] to mention the security issues and RAN to decide\n[CATT] have similar views as ZTE and Interdigital\n[Huawei] Not yet conclude the issues in FBS, \n[Chair]  to continue the discussion on 1426\n\n>>CC_5<<\n[Ericsson] proposes to note","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211399 ","LS on PAP/CHAP and other point-to-point protocols usage in 5GS ","S2-2101309 ",">>CC_5<<\n[China Telecom] presented the LS\n[Chair] to be Noted, against the W2-1st challenge deadline\n\n>>CC_5<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211537 ","LS on PAP/CHAP and other point-to-point protocols usage in 5GS ","China Telecommunications ",">>CC_5<<\n[China Telecom] presented the contribution\n[Interdigital] SA3 should not capture anything about insecure protocols\n[Ericsson] to Note the LS\n[Apple] SA3 should give recommendations\n[China Telecom]\n[Marcus] agree with Interdigital\n[Chair] to note the LS and the reply\n[Chair] to be Noted, against the W2-1st challenge deadline\n>>CC_5<<\n[Huawei] support to send the LS out (before challenge deadline)\n[Interdigital] disagree with reasoning for issuing the LS as proposed in S3-211537.\n[Futurewei] Agrees with Interdigital\n[Interdigital] asks calrification\n[THALES] supports interdigital and Futurwei's views\n[CT] provides calrification to interdigital\n[Apple] provides comments\n[Interdigital] provides further comments\n>>CC_8<<\nInterdigital objects to continue discussion on this topic\n>>CC_8<<","LS out ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211367 ","Misalignment on usage of OAuth within 3GPP 29.510 ","GSMA ",">>CC_6<<\nNokia presents and points out this is related to misalignment dicussion, would like to draft a reply LS\nchair suggests to use this mail thread to discuss the potential LS out\n>>CC_6<<\n>>CC_8<<\nNokia presents LS out should be made if there is consensus, but current is no. so no need to answer\nChair proposes to answer there is no result currently\nMavenir proposes to keep it open and hope it can have some agreements\n>>CC_8<<\n[Nokia] provides r1\n[Mavenir]  focus on getting the compromise going and finalized\n","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","postponed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211375 ","Reply LS on storage of KAUSF ","C1-211518 ",">>CC_6<<\nEricsson presents.\nChair suggests to answer \n>>CC_6<<\n[Samsung] provides r1 for reply LS\n[Apple] provides r2 with changes\n[NEC] fine with r1\n[Samsung] provides r3\n[Ericsson] Why don’t we attach also the Rel-16 CR in the LS ? Maybe the CT4 would like to know about the Rel-16 CR as well as the Rel-17 one. \n[Qualcomm] proposes changes \n[Samsung] provides r5\n[Apple] suggests to capture the following in meeting notes: \" As discussed in the e-mail discussion S3-212103/S3-212104, SA3 will revisit the decision based on CT1 feedback \"\n[Samsung] requests chair and MCC to capture the same\n[MCC] will record\n[QC] fine with r5\n[Ericsson] fine with r5","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","replied to","No ","draft_S3-211375-r5","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211381 ","Reply LS on port allocation for the W1 interface ","C4-211700 ",">>CC_6<<\nChair suggests to note, against the W2-2nd challenge dealine\n>>CC_6<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211384 ","Attack preventing NAS procedures to succeed ","GSMA ",null,"LS in ","  ","Yes ","No","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211388 ","Reply LS on broadcasting gNB ID length in system information block ","R2-2102449 ",">>CC_6<<\nChair suggests to note, against the W2-2nd challenge dealine\n>>CC_6<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211389 ","Remove the user message size limitation for DTLS over SCTP ","R3-211274 ",">>CC_6<<\nNokia proposes to note\nChair suggests to note, against the W2-2nd challenge dealine\n>>CC_6<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211410 ","LS on progress of ongoing work item ITU-T TR-USSD ","ITU-T SG11 ",null,"LS in ","  ","Yes ","No","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211366 ","5G capabilities exposure for factories of the future - revised ","5G Alliance for Connected Industries and Automation (5G-ACIA) ",null,"LS in ","  ","Yes ","No","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211420 ","Reply LS to SA2 on UE Data Collection ","S4-210644 ",null,"LS in ","  ","Yes ","No","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211899 ","Draft LS on TAU reject issue during MME handover ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Ericsson] does not agree to the LS out as it is formulated\n[Huawei] provides r1\n>>CC_6<<\nEricsson provides comment in email. wonders if CT1 can changes this for R15. comments to leave freedom to CT4  how to consider this issue.\nHuawei provides r1 in draft folder and clarifies.the proposal is recommendation rather than mandatory\n>>CC_6<<\n[Ericsson] provides r2\n[Huawei] fine with r2","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211899-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211456 ","TCG progress - report from TCG rapporteur ","InterDigital, Inc. ",null,"other ","Information ","Yes ","No","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211421 ","LS on Media-Related Services and Requirements ","S4-210680 ",null,"LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
[4,"Work Areas ","  ","  ","  ",null,"  ","  ","  ","  ","  ","  ","  ","  "]
[4.0999999999999996,"Integration of GBA into 5GC (Rel-17) ","S3‑211356 ","Living document for TS 33.220: UDM services for GBA ","THALES ","[Huawei] proposes to note unless modified\n[Thales] considers there is no issue as proposed, and proposes to have discussion in 1928 thread","draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211357 ","Living document for TS 33.223: UDM services for GBA ","THALES ","[Huawei] has similar comment as 1356","draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211875 ","Discussion paper on GBA authentication vector service ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Ericsson] does not agree with this contribution\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[Ericsson] has further comments\n[Thales] comments\n[Huawei] clarifies","discussion ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211876 ","UDM support of GBA service ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Ericsson] does not agree with this contribution","draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211925 ","Living document for GBA_5G: draftCR to TS 33.220: SBA support for Zh and Zn interfaces ","Ericsson ",null,"draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211926 ","Living document for GBA_5G: draftCR to TS 33.223: SBA support for Zpn ","Ericsson ",null,"draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211927 ","Discussion on GBA support in UDM ","Ericsson ","[Ericsson] could declare it endorsed but as there are disagreements in the approach in other threads so would like to note this","discussion ","Endorsement ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211928 ","pCR to living document for TS 33.220: Support for GBA in UDM ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] proposes to note unless modified\n[Thales] considers there is no issue as proposed.\n[Huawei] comments 1928 and 1875 on same issue, so comments in 1875 applies here ","other ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211929 ","pCR to living document for TS 33.223: Support for GBA in UDM ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] has same position as 1928 as 1929 refers to 1928","other ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211930 ","DRAFT LS on SBA for GBA ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] points out this contribution is based on the result of 1928/1875 discussion","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
[4.2,"Security Assurance Specification for IMS (Rel-17) ","S3‑211534 ","Adding test case on the confidentiality configuration in P-CSCF ","China Telecommunications ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211536 ","Adding a new threat related to SPI allocation in the P-CSCF ","China Telecommunications ",null,"draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211538 ","Adding a new threat related to SPI allocation in the P-CSCF ","China Telecommunications ",null,"draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211902 ","IMS SCAS: living doc for the threats ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",null,"draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211903 ","IMS SCAS: Adding the assets and threats of the new NFs and update existing threats ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",null,"draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211904 ","IMS SCAS: living doc for the threats ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",null,"draftCR ","Approval ","No ","No","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211905 ","Update the test case on bidding down and add reqirements on new NFs ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211906 ","Editorial change on TS 33.516 ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211907 ","Presentation of Specification to TSG: TS 33.226, Version 0.5.0 ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Nokia] provides editorial comments\n[Huawei] proposes to note as wrong type of contribution","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
[null,null,"S3-212263","Presentation of Specification to TSG: TS 33.226 for approval","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Huawei] announces it is cover sheet with correct type, the content is same as 1907","TS or TR cover ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No "]
[null,null,"S3-212262","IMS SCAS: Adding the assets and threats of the new NFs and update existing threats ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",null,"CR","Agreement ","Yes","Yes","left for email approval","No "]
[4.3,"Security Assurance Specification Enhancements for 5G (Rel-17) ","S3‑211409 ","LS re Penetration Testing of SCAS ","GSMA ","[Huawei] proposes to postpone as related draft LS out is noted","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","postponed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211542 ","Add a new test case in clause 4.2.2.1.18 ","ZTE Corporation ",null,"draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211673 ","liviing CR to 33.511 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Huawei] proposes to change to CR and requests new numbers\nMCC suggests to reserve number as portal is open","draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","left for email approval","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211674 ","liviing CR to 33.512 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Huawei] proposes to change to CR and requests new numbers\nMCC suggests to reserve number as portal is open","draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","left for email approval","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211675 ","liviing CR to 33.514 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Huawei] proposes to change to CR and requests new numbers\nMCC suggests to reserve number as portal is open","draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","left for email approval","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211676 ","liviing CR to 33.517 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Huawei] proposes to change to CR and requests new numbers\nMCC suggests to reserve number as portal is open","draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","left for email approval","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211677 ","liviing CR to 33.117 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Huawei] proposes to change to CR and requests new numbers\nMCC suggests to reserve number as portal is open","draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","left for email approval","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211678 ","liviing CR to 33.926 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Huawei] proposes to change to CR and requests new numbers\nMCC suggests to reserve number as portal is open","draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","left for email approval","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211679 ","Add textcase of NAS based redirection ","Huawei, HiSilicon ",null,"draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211680 ","Add testcase to UP security activation in Inactive scenario ","Huawei, HiSilicon ",null,"draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211792 ","Discussion on adding SCAS for the various split gNB cases ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Huawei] objects","discussion ","Discussion ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211793 ","Adding SCAS for the various split gNB cases ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Huawei] objects\n[QC] clarifies\n[Docomo] proposes a way forward\n[Huawei] doesn't agree\n[QC] clarifies\n[Huawei] still has concern","other ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211857 ","Threats related to session establishment procedure ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",null,"draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211858 ","New test case on validation of S-NSSAIs in PDU session establishment ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Ericsson] comments on typo\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Ericsson] is fine with r1","draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211870 ","New test case on de-registering UE after NSSAA revocation ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",null,"draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211871 ","New security threats on unauthorized slice access ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",null,"draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
[4.4000000000000004,"Security Assurance Specification for Service Communication Proxy (SECOP) (Rel-17) ","S3‑211936 ","SCP-specific adaptations - technical baseline ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211937 ","SCP-specific adaptations - Operating systems ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211938 ","SCP-specific adaptations - Web servers ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211939 ","SCP-specific adaptations - Network devices ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211940 ","SCP-specific adaptations - NFs in SBA ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211941 ","SCP test cases ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell, NTT Docomo ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211942 ","Assets and Threats specific to SCP ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",null,"CR ","Agreement ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211943 ","SCP Test on Token forwarded to the correct NFp ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211944 ","SCP Test on Correct token forwarded to NFp ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211945 ","SCP-specific adaptations - technical baseline ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211946 ","SCP-specific adaptations - Operating systems ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211947 ","SCP-specific adaptations - Web servers ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211948 ","SCP-specific adaptations - Network devices ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211949 ","SCP-specific adaptations - NFs in SBA ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ericsson] requires update\n[Nokia] asks for clarification on comment\n[Ericsson] is fine with original contribution","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211950 ","SCP test cases ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell, NTT Docomo ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","revised ","No ","2121-r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211951 ","Assets and Threats specific to SCP ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ericsson] requires update\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[Nokia] provides r1\n[Huawei] is fine with r1\n[Ericsson] can live with r1","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211952 ","SCP Test on Token forwarded to the correct NFp ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ericsson] requires update or clarification\n[Nokia] replies the same clarification in 1951","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211953 ","SCP Test on Correct token forwarded to NFp ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ericsson] requires update or clarification\n[Nokia] replies the same clarification in 1951","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211955 ","SCP Requirement and test case for protection over internal interfaces ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ericsson] proposes to note","pCR ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212121 ","SCP test cases ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell, NTT Docomo ","[Ericsson] comments and proposes to note\n[Huawei] has similar concern as Ericsson (in 1950 thread)\n[Nokia] provides 1950-r1 (in 1950 thread)\n[Nokia] provides 2121-r1\n[Huawei] asks to find 2121-r1\n[Nokia] uploads 2121-r1\n[Ericsson] comments to update\n[Nokia] provides r2\n[Ericsson] has two concrete proposals\n[Nokia] provides r3\n[Ericsson] is fine with r3","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-212121-r3","S3‑211950 "]
[4.5,"Security Assurance Specification for 5G NWDAF (Rel-17) ","S3‑211640 ","Corrections on TS 33.521 ","Huawei, HiSilicon, China Mobile ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211641 ","Execution Step for Finding the right NF instance serving the UE ","Huawei, HiSilicon, China Mobile ","[Nokia] proposes to note unless clarified\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Nokia] provides r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211842 ","Adding asset, description and threats to TR 33.926 for NWDAF SCAS ","China Mobile ","[Nokia] comments for clarification and update\n[CMCC] clarifies and provides r2 to address concerns\n[Nokia] is ok with r2, comments more updates needed so will come back next meeting","CR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","r2","S3‑210775 "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211843 ","Execution Step for Data Masking on Integration Analysis ","China Mobile ","[Nokia] comments for clarification and update\n[CMCC] clarifies and provides r1 to address concerns\n[Nokia] repeats the comment and proposes to bring it back next meeting\n[CMCC] points out it is replied yesterday and would like to know Nokia's opinion","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211844 ","Address ENs in TS 33.521 ","China Mobile, Huawei, HiSilicon ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211845 ","Presentation of TR33.521 to SA plenary ","China Mobile ",null,"TS or TR cover ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
[4.5999999999999996,"Security Assurance Specification for Non-3GPP InterWorking Function (N3IWF) (Rel- 17) ","  ","  ","  ",null,"  ","  ","  ","  ","  ","  ","  ","  "]
[4.7,"Security Assurance Specification for Inter PLMN UP Security (Rel-17) ","S3‑211543 ","Living document for SCAS_5G_IPUPS draftCR to TR 33.926 ","ZTE Corporation ",null,"other ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","left for email approval","No ","needs to incorporate approved document as living document","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211544 ","Living document for SCAS_5G_IPUPS draftCR to TS 33.513 ","ZTE Corporation ",null,"other ","Approval ","Yes ","No","left for email approval","No ","needs to incorporate approved document as living document","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211868 ","New test case on malformatted message for IPUPS ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Ericsson] proposes to note\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[Nokia] proposes to update\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Ericsson] requests to update\n[Huawei] provides r3\n[Ericsson] is fine with r3","draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211869 ","New security threats on IPUPS malformatted message ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Ericsson] proposes to note\n[Nokia] proposes to update\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[Ericsson] proposes to update, withdraws note proposal\n[Huawei] provides r1\nMCC comments on the type of contribution\n[Ericsson] is fine with r1","draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
[4.8,"eSCAS_5G for Network Slice-Specific Authentication and Authorization Function (NSSAAF) (Rel-17) ","  ","  ","  ",null,"  ","  ","  ","  ","  ","  ","  ","  "]
[4.9000000000000004,"Mission critical security enhancements phase 2 (Rel-17) ","S3‑211404 ","LS on Plugtest issues ","S6-210203 ",">>CC_8<<\nMotorola proposes to note as cc to SA3\n>>CC_8<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","No","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211479 ","[33.180] R17 Group subscription ","Motorola Solutions Danmark A/S ","[Huawei] Suggests revision\n[Motorola] Provides clarification\n[Huawei] Still has concerns with some text, requests to update\n[Motorola] suggests modified texts\n[CATT] Does not agree with changes\n[Motorola] provides clarification\n[Huawei] Requests to provide r1 with the suggested change of texts","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211480 ","[33.180] R17 Limited Service ","Motorola Solutions Danmark A/S ","[BDBOS] Supports the CR\n[Verizon] asks for clariifcation\n[Motorola] provides clarification\n[Verizon] asks further clarification\n[Huawei] Adds further comments and agrees with Verizon\n[Ericsson] Asks for updates and clarification, and suggestd to send LS to SA6 to get a common understanding of the requirements related to the use of Limited Services\n[Motorola] provides clarification\n[Motorola] provides clarification to Verizon","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211481 ","[33.180] R17 Preconfigured group clarification ","Motorola Solutions Danmark A/S ","[MCC] suggests some re-wording\n[Huawei] Suggests to note the CR\n[Motorola] provides clarification\n[Huawei] Asks further clarification onhow to avoid members in Group (not member of regroup) to generate session keys using GMK and GMK-ID?","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211625 ","Security solution for temporary group – broadcast group call procedure ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Motorola] Proposes to note\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Motorola] Still doesnot agree with the solution and suggests to wait until SA6 agrees on requirement","CR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212053 ","Security for user regroup ","CATT ","[Motorola] proposes to note. MCPTT server is never in possession of the GMK. GMS cannot send security information or group config information to a client that has not subscribed to that group.\n","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212091 ","CR on signalling Algorithm Selection ","Samsung ",null,"CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","No","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["4.10","Enhancements to User Plane Integrity Protection Support in 5GS (Rel-17) ","S3‑211820 ","UP integrity protection in options 4,5 and 7 ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] The changes are not needed. This may create different interpretation of TS 33.501.\n[MCC] suggests updates to cover sheet is agreed","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ","  ","  "]
[4.1100000000000003,"Adapting BEST for use in 5G networks (Rel-17) ","S3‑211412 ","Living document for TS 33.163 ","KPN N.V. ",null,"draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","No","available ","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211429 ","Discussion paper BEST key hierarchy based on AKMA ","Deutsche Telekom AG ","[KPN]  provides comments","discussion ","Discussion ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211461 ","pCR to Living document for TS 33.163: update for 3G, 4G, and 5G key agreement ","KPN N.V. ","[Huawei] Aks for clarification and updates. Or issue can be captured as EN.\n[KPN] provides clarification and poroposal to update the doc.\n[Huawei] suggests to provide r1 and if futher updates needed will suggest in r2\n[KPN] provides r1\n[Huawei] updates and provides r2\n[KPN] provides furtehr updates as r3\n[Huawei] asks for further modification\n[KPN] provides r4\n[Huawei] fine with r4\n[KPN] provides draft final status","other ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211461-r4","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211934 ","Work Item Exception sheet for BEST_5G Rel 17 ","VODAFONE Group Plc ",null,"WI exception request ","Agreement ","Yes ","No","approved","No ","  ","  "]
[4.12,"Authentication and key management for applications based on 3GPP credential in 5G (Rel-17) ","S3‑211396 ","Reply LS on AKMA Anchor Function selection ","S2-2101304 ","[CMCC] proposes to note","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211546 ","Clarification on how AF select AAnF ","ZTE Corporation ","[CMCC] proposes to merge into 1671\n[ZTE] is generally fine to be merged, but has concerns on 1671\n[Ericsson] comments for clarification\n[Ericsson] is fine to merging into 1671","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","draft_S3-211671-rx","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211547 ","Clarification on how AUSF select AAnF ","ZTE Corporation ","[CMCC] proposes to merge into 1671\n[ZTE] is generally fine to be merged, but has concerns on 1671\n[Ericsson] comments for clarification\n[Ericsson] is fine to merging into 1671","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","draft_S3-211671-rx","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211671 ","Clarification on AAnF Selection ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[ZTE] comments\n[Ericsson] comments for clarification\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[Ericson] is ok to have some words\n[ZTE] comments to add words\n[CMCC] proposes way forward\n[Ericsson] proposes to have discussion in merged document thread, and comments on clause 6.1 and 6.2\n[Huawei] proposes to move to 1908 thead for further discussion and then provide revision of 1671\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[ZTE] has comments on coversheet\n[Huawei] provides r2 to address ZTE's comment\n[ZTE] wonders there is confusion or not with 1908-r4, proposes way forward\n[Huawei] comments\n[Huawei] proposes two options to move forward\n[ZTE] is fine with option 2\n[Ericsson] proposes to set way forward in 1908\n[Ericsson] comments to change nomative language as it is study\n[Huawei] provides r3\n[ZTE] is fine with r3\n[Ericsson] comments to update cover page and wants to ask MCC guidance on implementing the CR\n[Huawei] asks Ericsson if it is ok to merge\n[Ericsson] considers it can be done but needs to get confirmation from all involved parties\n[ZTE] prefers to keep these CRs separately unless it is difficult to associate them\n[Huawei] provides r4 to fix some mistakes and update reason for change\n[Huawei] provides r5 to follow MCC's advice on how to deal with related CRs.\n[CMCC] comments on coverpage\n[Ericsson] agrees with CMCC\n[Huawei] provides r6\n[Ericsson] is fine with r6 but has comments on clause 6.3, proposes to bring contribution next time to correct.\n[ZTE] is fine with r6\n[CMCC] is fine with r6","CR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","r6","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211908 ","AKMA Anchor Function selection clause ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] proposes to revise\n[Ericsson] clarifies\n[Huawei] has further comments\n[Ericsson] clarifies\n[Huawei] isn't convinced with the clarification\n[MCC} provides editorial comments\n[Huawei] is OK with SCP related proposal\n[Ericsson] provides r1\n[Ericsson] provides r2 to incorporate MCC's comment\n[Huawei] proposes to add sentence, in either 1908 or 1671\n[Huawei] provides r4(not uploaded)\n[Ericsson] provides r4\n[Huawei] is fine with r4\n[Huawei] proposes to change \"should\" to \"shall\"\n[Ericsson] clarifies","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","draft_S3-211908-r4","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211550 ","Resolution of EN on other parameter in clause 6.3 ","ZTE Corporation ","[QC] proposes to note","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211817 ","Sending UE identifier to the AKMA AF ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Huawei] proposes to note\n[Samsung] comments for clarification\n[Ericsson] supports the principle but have comments for clarification\n[QC] clarifies to Samsung and Ericsson, and asks Huawei to consider the impact without this feature\n[Samsung] has further comments\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[QC] clarifies\n[Huawei] comments\n[QC] responses","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211585 ","Add an abbreviation to AKMA ","ZTE Corporation ","[Ericsson] requests for clarification\n[ZTE] provides r1\n[Ericsson] comments on cover sheet\n[ZTE] replis to take care of it\n[Ericsson] is fine with changing the cover upon submission","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211672 ","Editoral change in clause 6.1 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Ericsson] comments to consolidate 1548 and 1672\n[ZTE] comments to use 1548 as baseline\n[Huawei] comments to ZTE\n[Ericsson] agrees with Huawei, so agree with this CR, but not 1548","CR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211785 ","Profiling the GBA TLS protocols for use with AKMA ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Thales] proposes to update\n[Qc] is ok with Thales' comments and provides r1\n[Thales] is fine with r1","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","r1","S3‑210477 "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211910 ","IETF OSCORE as AKMA Ua* protocol ","Ericsson, DT ","[QC] requests update\n[Thales] proposes to note\n[Ericsson] clarifies","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211911 ","Extending the Ua security protocol namespace to include AKMA Ua* protocols ","Ericsson ","[QC] requests update\n[Thales] proposes to note\n[Ericsson] clarifies and asks way forward\n[Thales] replies","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211912 ","Handling of AKMA keys in the UE ","Ericsson ","[Rapporteur] announces noted as discussion paper","discussion ","Discussion ","Yes ","No","ntoed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211913 ","AKMA UE aspects ","Ericsson ","[QC] requests update\n[Ericsson] basically agrees with QC's comment and provides r1\n[QC] is fine with r1","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","draft_S3-211913-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211548 ","Clarification on how the AUSF get RID ","ZTE Corporation ","[Ericsson] comments to consolidate 1548 and 1672, proposes not to pursue this one\n[ZTE] replies to use 1548 as baseline\n[ZTE] asks question to Ericsson\n[Ericsson] keeps its position as comments in 1672\n[ZTE] is ok to note this, but still has concerns","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211551 ","UDM notifies AAnF AKMA context removal ","ZTE Corporation ","[Ericsson] proposes not to pursue\n[ZTE] clarifies and provides r1\n[Samsung] supports\n[QC] requests update\n[ZTE] replies with concrete proposal\n[QC] provides another proposal\n[ZTE] provides r2\n[Samsung] is general fine with r2 and has minor comment\n[Ericsson] comments and proposes way forward\n[ZTE] clarifies\n[Ericsson] does not want to have EN as CR, proposes to bring back in next meeting\n[ZTE] requests to solve issue in this meeting, and would like to ask real issue\n[Ericsson] gives detailed comment\n[ZTE] is ok with Ericsson's proposal and provides r3\n[Ericsson] proposes to remove UDM clause and fine with others\n[ZTE] provides r4 to catch Ericsson's comment\n[Ericsson] comments\n[ZTE] provides r5\n[ZTE] provides r6 to change 6.x to 6.y\n[Ericsson] is fine with r6\n[Ericsson] suggests to follow same way as in 1671 for referring to 1908\n[ZTE] provides r7\n[Ericsson] is fine with r7","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","draft_S3-211551-r7","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211552 ","Update clause 6.1 refer to Kausf stored in AUSF ","ZTE Corporation ","[QC] comments for clarification","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211553 ","Add Routing indicator in Authentication response ","ZTE Corporation ","[Ericsson] proposes not to pursue\n[Thales] comments for clarification\n[ZTE] clarfies\n[Thales] clarifies its comment\n[Huawei] supports and makes clarification\n[Thales] is ok with clarification\n[Ericsson] keeps its position unless updated to keep in line with the existing behavior of TS33.535","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211575 ","Handle the failure cause by UE ","ZTE Corporation ","[QC] proposes to note\n[ZTE] clarifies","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212073 ","Discussion on refresh of Kaf and Kakma ","Samsung ","[CMCC] proposes to note as discussion paper","discussion ","Discussion ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212074 ","Refresh of Kaf and Kakma ","Samsung ","[CMCC] proposes to note\n[Samsung] clarifies\n[QC] agrees to CMCC and comments further\n[Samsung] clarifies\n[CMCC] comments\n[QC] responses\n[Samsung] clarifies\n[QC] comments","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212075 ","Discussion on authorization of Kaf refresh ","Samsung ",null,"discussion ","Discussion ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212076 ","Network provides authorization to AF for Kaf key refresh ","Samsung ","[Ericsson] proposes not to pursue\n[Samsung] clarifies","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ","  ","  "]
[4.13,"User Plane Integrity Protection for LTE (Rel-17) ","S3‑211374 ","Reply LS on User Plane Integrity Protection for eUTRA connected to EPC ","C1-211461 ",null,"LS in ","  ","Yes ","No","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211398 ","Reply LS on User Plane Integrity Protection for eUTRA connected to EPC ","S2-2101306 ",null,"LS in ","  ","Yes ","No","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211472 ","CR to TS 33.401 - addition of UPIP to LTE ","VODAFONE Group Plc ","[TIM] uploaded comments\n[MCC] suggests updates to CR cover\n[Ericsson] Asks for clarification\n[Huawei] Suggests updates\n[Qualcomm] CR should not be pursued, should be converted into a pCR, if agreed by SA3, needs to be incorporated into a “draft CR” or “living CR” by the rapporteur (i.e., baseline draft CR for the next SA3 meeting).\n[Ericsson] proposes to postpone","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211642 ","User Plane Integrity Protection Policy Handling in LTE ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[TIM] uploaded comments\n[Huawei] provides clarifiaction\n[TIM] adds further comments\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Qualcomm] requests for revision and provides modification in texts\n[Huawei] provides r2","draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","draft_S3-211642-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211643 ","UP Integrity protection Handling for Option 3 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ",null,"draftCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
[4.1399999999999997,"Enhancements of 3GPP profiles for cryptographic algorithms and security protocols (Rel- 17) ","S3‑211855 ","recommendation of SHA256 in SIP digest ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[MCC] comments on note should not contain any normative words\n[Huawei] provides r1 to capture the comments from MCC\n[QC] proposes to merge with 2065\n[Huawei] is ok to change it to draft CR and clarifies that 2065 is postponed\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Ericsson] is ok with r2\n[QC] comments the baseline in clause 2 is not correct\n[Huawei] provides r3 and asks MCC's help if needs a new number to change to draft CR\n[MCC] clarifies a new number is needed and this CR will be not pursued\n[QC] is fine with r3\n[Huawei] announces the new draft CR is 2261","CR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ",null,"  "]
[null,null,"S3-212261","recommendation of SHA256 in SIP digest ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Huawei] announces it comes from the discussion of 1855 as to change type from CR to draft CR. 2261-r1=1855-r3\n[QC] is fine with r1\n[Ericsson] is fine with r1","draft CR","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","revised","No ","r1"]
["  ","  ","S3‑212061 ","Security updates for algorithms and protocols in 33.220 ","Ericsson ","[Apple] comments on procedural question\n[MCC] replies","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212062 ","Security updates for algorithms and protocols in 33.222 ","Ericsson ",null,"CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212063 ","Security updates for algorithms and protocols in 33.223 ","Ericsson ",null,"CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212064 ","Security updates for algorithms and protocols in 33.210 ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] proposes to update\n[Ericsson] clarifies\n[Huawei] comments further\n[Ericsson] proposes way forward\n[Huawei] is fine with proposal and wait for final update and confirmation","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ","  ","  "]
[null,null,"S3-212269","Security updates for algorithms and protocols in 33.210 ","Ericsson ","[Ericsson] announces to convert from 2064 as draftCR\n[Ericsson] provide r2 based on offline comments from Huawei","draft CR","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","r2"]
["  ","  ","S3‑212065 ","Security updates for algorithms and protocols in 33.203 ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] proposes to postpone\n[Ericsson] is fine to postpone\n[QC] agrees with Huawei there is possible backward compatilibity issue, and propose to create a draft CR to catch the material can reach consensus.","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","postponed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212066 ","Security updates for algorithms and protocols in 33.310 ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] requests update\n[Ericsson] clarifies and will provide revision accordingly\n[Huawei] comments to use draft CR","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ","  ","  "]
[null,null,"S3-212264","Security updates for algorithms and protocols in 33.310 ","Ericsson ","[Ericsson] announces to convert from 2066 as draft CR\n[Huawei] proposes to remove the changes in clause 6.1\n[Ericsson] provides r2\n[Huawei] is fine with r2","draft CR","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","r2"]
["  ","  ","S3‑212067 ","Security updates for algorithms and protocols in 33.501 ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] proposes to postpone or noted\n[Ericsson] clarifies\n[Huawei] is not convinced\n[Ericsson] is fine to be postponed","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","postponed","No ","  ","  "]
[4.1500000000000004,"Security Assurance Specification for 5G (Rel-16) ","S3‑211554 ","Clarification on external file system mount restrictions R16 ","ZTE Corporation ",null,"CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211555 ","Clarification on external file system mount restrictions R17 ","ZTE Corporation ","[MCC] proposes not to pursue as there is no rel-17 version of TS 33.117\n[ZTE] is fine to be noted","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211556 ","Editorial correction in clause 4.2.2.1.5 R16 ","ZTE Corporation ",null,"CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211557 ","Editorial correction in clause 4.2.2.1.5 R17 ","ZTE Corporation ","[MCC] proposes not to pursue as there is no rel-17 version of TS 33.511\n[ZTE] is fine to be noted","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211681 ","Update testcases in gNB SCAS ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Nokia] objects unless clarified\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Huawei] asks for email approval as all Nokia's concern are address in r2\n[Nokia] is fine with r2","CR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211883 ","Resolving EN on the error handling ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",null,"CR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211935 ","Alignment of requirements with specification updates ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ericsson] comments the reference is for r15 so no updates needed for r16\n[Docomo] comments that it needs a way to refer the changed requirements in R16/R17\n[Ericsson] agrees with Docomo's comment\n[Nokia] proposes a way forward\n[Ericsson] asks MCC's suggestion\nMCC proposes a way forward\n[Nokia] provides r1","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","revised","No ","r1","need to check with Docomo and Ericsson"]
[4.16,"Security Aspects of the 5G Service Based Architecture (Rel-16) ","S3‑211446 ","LS to 3GPP SA3 N32 and multiple PLMN IDs ","GSMA ","[Nokia] proposes to use draft reply S3-211458 as baseline for discussion\n>>CC_6<<\nrapporteur points out 2 proposals are related, 1748/1457\n>>CC_6<<\n>>CC_8<<\nVF presents there are dfferent concusion so could not make LS out\nEricsson/Interdigital comments that LS out could be made after the agreement achieved.\nEricsson provides revison so it may be merged.\nVF comments\n>>CC_8<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","replied to","No ","  1458 ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211748 ","Discussion on \"LS to 3GPP SA3 N32 and multiple PLMN IDs\" ","Ericsson ","[Nokia] proposes to use draft reply S3-211458 as baseline for discussion\n[Mavenir] support to align with CT4 as option 1\n>>CC_6<<\nEricsson presents\nVF comments\nHuawei comments for clarification, there is 3 proposal, 1st proposal should be clarified.  All changes could be captured in only R17, rather than R16. \nEricsson clarifies to VF's comment\nMavenir agrees with Huawei but maybe exception can be made for cSEPP in r16.\nVF comments\nMavenir replies then it should be in R17 only.\nHuawei comments SEPP check HTTP header and body, would provide comments in email\nMavenir would like to provide r1 for further discussion\n>>CC_6<<","discussion ","Discussion ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211457 ","Discussion on SEPP to SEPP communication on 5GSA networks ","VODAFONE Group Plc ","[Nokia] proposes to use draft reply S3-211458 as baseline for discussion\n>>CC_6<<\nDocomo doubts about case 3. \nVF clarifies\nMavenir asks whether there is conclusion in GSMA, proposes to wait until conclusion is made in GSMA and then SA3 do the work.\nDocomo strongly recommends VF to reconsider the case, especially considering security\nDT is not happy with this contribution, comments are provided for the CR\nEricsson suggests to go to another one(1748)\nVF clarifies\n>>CC_6<<","discussion ","Discussion ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211749 ","[DRAFT] Reply-LS on N32 and multiple PLMN IDs ","Ericsson ",null,"LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","No","merged","No ","  1458 ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211458 ","draft response LS to GSMA on 3GPP SA3 N32 and multiple PLMN IDs ","VODAFONE Group Plc ","[Nokia] proposes to use draft reply S3-211458 as baseline for discussion\n[Mavenir] support to align with CT4 as option 1\n[DT] comments\n[Ericsson] comments and asks for updates\n[Vodafone] provides clarification\n[Docomo] comments\n[Mavenir] doesnot agree with the original LS proposal","LS out ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","open","No ","  "," extended deadline"]
["  ","  ","S3‑211459 ","CR to 33.501 R16 - Clarification on the number of PLMN IDuse by SEPP over N32 ","VODAFONE Group Plc ","[DT] concerns on scalability. Proposes texts to allow multiple PLMN IDs\n[Docomo] having N32 interface per PLMN ID would also make routing easier, asks clarification on definition on what one PLMN is. \n[DT] provides clarification\n[Docomo] comments\n[Ericsson] needs further analysis and proposes not to pursue in this meeting\n[Ericsson] ok with reaching an agreement at this meeting\n[Philips] comments\n[BT] comments\nMavenir] proposes normative texts\n[Huawei] comments\n[Philips] provides r1\n[Huawei] comments and generally ok with r1\n[Ericsson] provides r2\n[Mavenir] provides r3\n[Vodafone] fine with r3\n[Ericsson] minor change proposal in r3\n[Mavenir] fine with the change in general","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","draft_S3-211459-r4","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211460 ","CR to 33.501 R17 - Clarification on the number of PLMN IDuse by SEPP over N32 ","VODAFONE Group Plc ","[Nokia] mirror of S3-211459","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","draft_S3-211459-r4","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211462 ","Draft CR to TS 33.501 to resolve security hole when IPX SEPP is used ","VODAFONE Group Plc ","[DT] IPX entities should be less dominant in the spec, SEPP chaining shall not be allowed\n[DT] provides r1\n[Docomo] proposes to note\n[Vodafone] provides clarification\n[Mavenir] agree with Docomo and vdf and not fine with r1","draftCR ","Discussion ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","draft_S3-211462-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211980 ","N32-c and N32-f clarification R16 ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ericsson] proposes either to revise or to merge with 1760\n[Nokia] provides r1","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","draft_S3-211980-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211981 ","N32-c and N32-f clarification R17 ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Nokia] mirror 1980 and provides r1","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","No","agreed","No ","draft_S3-211981-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211759 ","Clarify the usage of TLS and PRINS between SEPPs ","Ericsson ","[Mavenir] provides r1\n[Nokia] co-supporting the updates in r1\n[Huawei] fine with r1\n[Ericsson] provides r2\n[Mavenir] provides r3\n[Huawei] fine with r3\n[Vodafone] object to r3\n[Ericsson] provides r6\n[Vodafone] fine with r6\n[Mavenir] provides r7\n[Vodafone] asks to avoid IPX reference altogether\n[Mavenir] do not agree with Vodafone's proposal\n[Vodafone] objects to Mavenir's proposed sentence on mandating PRINS\n[Mavenir] comments\n[Mavenir] provides r8\n[Nokia] provides r9 and Mavenir co-signed\n[Ericsson] provides r10\n[Mavenir] comments\n[Nokia] provides r11\n[Vodafone] comments\n[Mavenir] objects to the sentence proposed in r11\n[Ericsson] provides r12\n[Nokia] provides r13\n[Huawei] fine with r3\n[Mavenir] comments and provides r14\n[Ericsson] provides r15","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","draft_S3-211759-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211760 ","Clarify the usage of TLS and PRINS between SEPPs ","Ericsson ","[Nokia] mirror of S3-211759","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","draft_S3-211760-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211761 ","Clarify the usage of TLS and PRINS between SEPPs ","Ericsson ","[Nokia] mirror of S3-211759","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","draft_S3-211761-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211626 ","Correction to Authorization for indirect communication with delegated discovery procedure ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Ericsson] proposes to not pursue\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Nokia] proposes to not pursue\n[Mavenir] proposes NOTE for a way forward\n[Huawei] comments","CR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211762 ","Correction to NF Certificate profile: Format of the apiRoot ","Ericsson ",null,"CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","No","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211763 ","Correction to JOSE profile Reference ","Ericsson ",null,"CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","No","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211764 ","Correction to JOSE profile Reference ","Ericsson ","[Nokia] mirror of S3-211763","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211982 ","Deployment models R16 ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ericsson] proposes minor updates\n[Nokia] provides r1\n[Ericsson] fine with r1\n[Mavenir] comments","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","draft_S3-211982-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211983 ","Deployment models R17 ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Nokia] mirror of S3-211982","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","draft_S3-211983-r1","  "]
[4.17,"Evolution of Cellular IoT security for the 5G System (Rel-16) ","  ","  ","  ",null,"  ","  ","  ","  ","  ","  ","  ","  "]
[4.18,"Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (Rel-16) ","S3‑211644 ","Assign FC Value for KTIPSec and KTNAP Derivation in R16 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Nokia] comments\n[Huawei] is it ok to bring CR in next meeting\n[Nokia] comments\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Nokia] ok with r1","CR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","draft_S3-211644-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211645 ","Assign FC Value for KTIPSec and KTNAP Derivation in R17 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Nokia] comments\n[Huawei] is it ok to bring CR in next meeting\n[Nokia] this document is about the changes only in TS 33.501 and not about TS 33.220\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Nokia] ok with r1","CR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","draft_S3-211645-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211646 ","FC Value Change because of KTIPSec and KTNAP Derivation in R16 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ",null,"CR ","Approval ","Yes ","No","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211647 ","FC Value Change because of KTIPSec and KTNAP Derivation in R17 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Huawei] provides r1","CR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","draft_S3-211647-r1","  "]
[4.1900000000000004,"Security aspects of Enhancement of Network Slicing (Rel-16) ","S3‑211383 ","Prevention of attacks on sliced core network ","GSMA ",">>CC_7<<\n[Huawei] prsented the LS\n>>CC_7<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","open","No ","  ","  Under Discussion"]
["  ","  ","S3‑211415 ","Reply LS on Prevention of attacks on sliced core network ","S2-2103213 ",">>CC_7<<\n[Huawei] prsented the LS\n>>CC_7<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211611 ","Discussion on slice issues in core networks ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Huawei] r1 uploaded\n[Ericsson] proposes to note","discussion ","Endorsement ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","draft_S3-211611-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211984 ","Discussion of GSMA LS S3-211383 Prevention of attacks on sliced core ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ericsson] proposes to note","discussion ","Endorsement ","Yes ","No","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211527 ","Reply LS to GSMA on prevention of attacks on sliced core network ","CableLabs ","[Huawei] Suggests to revise the LS\n[Samsung] agree with Huawei\n>>CC_7<<\n[CableLabs] presented the LS\n[Nokia] can be shaort reply. Discussion are ongoing in Nokia contribution \n[Mavenir] profile can be udated by the malicious NF. We need an another entity to check the authorization details\n[CableLabs] attacks are not realistic\n[Verizon] need an enabler for the operator. Surprised to see attack is not realistic, need to address the attack. \n[Ericsson] not possible to send the LS from this meeting, there is no same understanding of the attack in the group.\n[Chair] need concrete proposal to make progress, as we need to reply the LSs on time\n[Mavenir] need to have discussion on the enabler before reply\n[Nokia] Can have a Note in the spec as proposed by Ericsson.\n[Ericsson] need to agree on the attack, before addressing in TS\n[Chair] to discuss on the attack first\n[Mavenir] including NASSAI in the certification may create operational problem for the etwork \n[Cablelabs] Spec needs to be open for different implementation\n[Huawei] mention attacks are not realistic in the LS.\n[Vz] are we agreeing on threat should be the focus\n[Ericsson] details the attacks\n[NTT] to take the disc on e-mail and to have  extended deadline (e-mail approval)\n[Chair] Propose to have a draft based on the discussions\n[Mavenir] propose to have extended deadline as proposed by NTT DoCoMo  \n>>CC_7<<\n[Ericsson] proposes to postpone, as companies have different understanding of the issue\n[Vz] should convey to GSMA that the SA3 needs time to study the \"Threats\" identified by GSMA.Following contributions should be noted: S3-211527, S3-211611, S3-211984, the threat on stealing of access token is very valid and need to be addressed.\n[CableLabs] this attack is not realistic if the operator implements proper authorization policy\n[Vz] provides reference to OAuth ietf doc \n[CableLabs] provides r1\n[Vz] r1 doesnot capture all discussion from call.  reply LS should indicate that SA3 is looking into the threats.\n[CableLabs] a statement is included to state SA3 is looking into improving the spec.\n[CableLabs] Asks Vz which statement is not acceptable\n[Mavenir] Asks clarification on authorization policy from CableLabs\n[Mavenir] Agrees with Vz that SA3 needs more time to look into the threat\n[Vz] provides clarification on objection\n[Mavenir] adds further comments\n>>CC_8<<\nCableLabs provides r1 but Verizon may not happy\nVerizon comments\nEricsson doesn' think it is converging. \nCableLabs thinks it would be helpful to have a reply but time is limited, request to extend one more week\nChair agrees to extend one more week\n>>CC_8<<","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","postponed","No ",null,"  Under Discussion"]
["  ","  ","S3‑211985 ","Prevention of attacks on slice core by CCA modifications - Rel-16 ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Mavenir] Not to pursue. Updates does not provide any validation procedure.\n[CableLabs] Agrees with Mavenir\n[Huawei] Agrees with Mavenir and Cable Labs. Proposes to include S-NSSAI in Access token. Suggests to refer 1611-r1 (use the NFprofile to check the NSSAI correctness)\n[Samusng] Supports the CR. Suggests additional texts\n[Mavenir] Still does not agree with CR\n[CableLabs] explains the issue\n[Huawei] Adds further comments\n[Samsung] Asks for further clarification on issue","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211986 ","Prevention of attacks on slice core by CCA modifications - Rel-17 ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Mavenir] Not to pursue. Updates does not provide any validation procedure.\n[Nokia] Suggests to keep discussion in 1985 thread","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211393 ","Reply LS on NSSAA at inter-PLMN mobility ","S2-2101052 ",null,"LS in ","  ","Yes ","No","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211511 ","Discussion paper on ENs in Network Slicing clause 16.3 ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai-Bell ","[Huawei] Compromised proposal is in CR 1624\n[Nokia] suggets to convert as NOTE","discussion ","Endorsement ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211512 ","CR to Delete NSSAA Editor Notes (Rel-16) ","Nokia, Nokia Shangahai-Bell ","[Huawei] Proposes to merge with 1624","CR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","S3‑211624 ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211513 ","CR to Delete NSSAA Editor Notes (Rel-17) ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai-Bell ","[Huawei] It’s a missro so we can decide after discussion in 1512","CR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","S3‑211624 ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211624 ","Slice privacy protection in NSSAA related procedures ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[MCC] Mirror for Rel-17 is missing, new tdoc need to be reserved\n[Huawei] Agrees with MCC\n[Nokia] suggets to convert as NOTE\n\n","CR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","draft_S3-211624-r1","  R-17 mirror for S3-211624-r1  to be created and S3-211513 to be merged in to that."]
["  ","  ","S3‑211601 ","Discussion on SN-ID in NSSAA ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Ericsson] proposes to ntoe","discussion ","Discussion ","Yes ","No","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211602 ","Serving network ID in NSSAA ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[MCC] Mirror for Rel-17 is missing, new tdoc need to be reserved, suggests updates in CR cover\n[Huawei] Agrees with MCC\n[Ericsson] proposes to note\n[Huawei] deadline has passed","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211603 ","validity peirod of NSSAA result ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[MCC] Mirror for Rel-17 is missing, new tdoc need to be reserved, suggests updates in CR cover\n[Huawei] Agrees with MCC\n[Ericsson] proposes to note\n[Huawei] deadline has passed","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211662 ","Change the procedure of network slice re-authentication and revocation by AAA-S ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Ericsson]  Is this change necessary to do as Rel-16 specs are frozen already? What kind of effects this have to stage 3 specs?\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Ericsson] provides r1","CR ","Approval ","Yes ","No","agreed","No ","draft_S3-211662-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211685 ","Addressing impersonate attack from AAA-S ","Huawei, HiSilicon ",null,"CR ","Approval ","Yes ","No","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211686 ","Mirror- Addressing impersonate attack from AAA-S ","Huawei, HiSilicon ",null,"CR ","Approval ","Yes ","No","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211687 ","EAP ID Request in NSSAA procedure ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] Provides comments, cannot agree to the CR\n[Ericsson] provides clarification\n[Huawei] asks further clarification\n[Ericsson] provides clarification\n[Huawei] connaot agree with current version","discussion ","Discussion ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211689 ","EAP ID Request in NSSAA Procedure ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] Provides comments, cannot agree to the CR\n[MCC] Suggests some changes\n[Huawei] proposes to note","CR ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211700 ","EAP ID Request in NSSAA Procedure (Rel-17) ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] Mirror CR for 1689. Can comeback if decision is made\n[MCC] Suggests some changes\n[Huawei] proposes to note","CR ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211719 ","DRAFT LS on EAP ID Request in NSSAA Procedure ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] premature to discuss LS before an agreement in 687/689. \n[Huawei] proposes to note","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["4.20","Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (Rel-16) ","S3‑211373 ","Reply LS on the re-keying procedure and security indication for NR SL ","C1-211228 ","[LG] no action required and proposes to note\n>>CC_8<<\nLGE presents it can be just noted\n>>CC_8<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211413 ","LS on the latest results on the Vehicular Multimedia deliverables from ITU FG-VM ","ITU-T Focus Group on Vehicular Multimedia (FG-VM) ","[LG] no action required and proposes to note","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211882 ","Clarification on a figure and the key activation ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Interdigital] requires clarification and proposes texts\n[Huawei] CR has already approved in last meeting and not implemented as the formatting is wrong \n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Interdigital] co-signs\n[Huawei] provides r2","CR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","draft_S3-211882-r1","  "]
[4.21,"New work item proposals ","S3‑211452 ","WID on IIoT ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Nokia] triggers discussion and seeks potential support\n[Ericsson] proposes to update before approval\n>>CC_6<<\nNokia asks the supporter of SID whether to support this WID also.\n>>CC_6<<\n[Nokia] provides r1\n[Ericsson] comments on r1 and would like to support if comments are accepted\n[Huawei] supports in general and comments for clarification\n[Nokia] provides r2\n[QC] proposes to untick the ME impact\n[Nokia] asks the motivation to untick ME impact\n[QC] comments ME impact existed in SA2 but wondering why in SA3, no security impact is needed on ME\n[Nokia] provides r3 to address QC's concern\n[Huawei] doesn't agree with second bullet\n[QC] is fine with r3\n[Ericsson] is fine with r3\n[Thales] is fine with r3\n[Nokia] clarifies to Huawei\n[ZTE] supports\n[Xiaomi] supports r3\n[Nokia] provides r4 to capture Huawei's comment\n>>CC_8<<\nNokia presents the status\nHuawei comments on 2nd bullet\nNokia replies\n>>CC_8<<\n[Huawei] provides comments, can live with r4\n[Ericsson] is fine with r4","WID new ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211452-r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211630 ","New WID on Security enhancements for 5G multicast-broadcast services (5MBS) ","Huawei, Hisilicon,China Broadcasting Network ",">>CC_6<<\nHuawei presents\nNokia supports\nVF asks how much work this will have\nHuawei clarfies the security are considered in SID as KI and will follow conclusion\nVF asks whether can be made in 1 meeting cycle\nHuawei clarifies there is 1 conclusion.\nVF asks  should there be only one feature as there is only 1 conclusion\nHuawei clarifies more possible conclusion will come out\nVF challenges the scope of this WID\nChair comments the deadline is November. whether to allow only conclusion made or have WID with possible conclusion\nTIM asks whether we have chance to extend after november\ncontinue in email\n>>CC_6<<\n[Ericsson] proposes to note and bring it back in August meeting to wait conclusion\n[Huawei] clarifies and proposes not to postpone\n[Ericsson] is not convinced\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Ericsson] proposes to bring it back in August\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Ericsson] provides r3 and proposes to postpone to Auguest\n[ZTE] supports\n[Huawei] is ok to remove the first two objective with adding a note as r4\n[Ericsson] is fine with r4\n>>CC_8<<\nHuawei present current status. no big issue\n>>CC_8<<\n[VF] comments to remove the note\n[Huawei] provides r5\n[CMCC] supports\n[Samsung] supports\n[Huawei] provides r6 to add supporting companies and correct issue in clause 2.1","WID new ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r6","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211701 ","5GFBS-WID for 5GFBS ","Apple ",">>CC_6<<\nApple presents\nVF comments there is no clear conclusion, can't agree\nQC doesn't see the conclusion in SID, object this way\n>>CC_6<<\n[QC] proposes to note\n[Orange] objects with same reason as QC\n[Huawei] proposes to postpone","WID new ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","postpone","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211771 ","Security aspects of eNPN: draft skeleton for draft CR ","Ericsson, Huawei, InterDigital ",null,"other ","Discussion ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211772 ","New WID on Security Aspects of eNPN ","Ericsson, Alibaba, China Mobile, InterDigital, ZTE ","[Huawei] proposes to update before accepted\n[Xiaomi] comments for clarification\n[Nokia] requests update\n>>CC_6<<\nEricsson presents\nVF wants to remove \"intial access for onboarding\" and is fine with others\nEricsson clarifies the status\nVF asks when will the conclusion be generated in TR\nNokia has concern on primary authentication, that still in email discussion\nXiaomi mentions SA2 has includes onboarding. If we decided not to include onboarding, do we need to inform SA2?\nChina Mobile support this in general, and have comments like Nokia\n>>CC_6<<\n[Ericsson] provides r1\n[Thales] requests update\n[Intel] requests update\n[Nokia] agrees with Intel and proposes rewording\n[Xiaomi] comments for clarification\n[Orange] comments and proposes to make objectives more general\n[Ericsson] provides r2\n[Nokia] is fine with r2\n[Philips] comments and proposes to add conclusions\n[Xiaomi] supports to have r3 as Philips proposed, and replies to Orange comment\n[MCC] comments on objectives and other iisue\n[Thales] is not fine with r3 but is fine with r2\n[Huawei] doesn't agree to remove the \"intial access on boarding\" bullet\n[Lenovo] considers onboarding feature should be included\n[Philips] comments that r3 is not acceptable based on MCC comment so onboarding should be included\n[CableLabs] provides way forward\n[Ericsson] provides r4\n[CableLabs] comments\n[Intel] provides r4-intel\n[QC] is fine with r4-intel\n[CableLabs] is fine with r4-intel\n[Thales] is fine with r4\n[Nokia] comments\n[Lenovo] is fine with r4 and support\n[Ericsson] clarifies\n[MCC] withdrawn the comment\n[Ericsson] provides r5\n[Xiaomi] comments and provides r6\n[Nokia] withdraw the proposal and supports r6 as supporting company\n[Ericsson] provides r7 to align with SA2 description\n[Orange] is fine with r2 only and objects others.\n>>CC_8<<\n\n>>CC_8<<\n[Thales] disagrees with r7\n[Intel] is fine with r7\n[Ericsson] provides r8\n[QC] is fine with r8\n[Nokia] is fine with r8\n[Thales] is fine with r8\n[Philips] provides r10\n[Xiaomi] is fine with r10\n[Thales] disagrees with r10 with the comments proposed yesterday\n[QC] is fine with r10\n[Philips] comments to Thales objection\n[Ericsson] points out that r8 is the most acceptable revision currently and asks for confirmation whether r8 could be agreeable\n[Lenovo] is fine with both r8 and r10\n[Philips] would like to hear Thales reply before decision for r8\n[CMCC] is fine with both r8 and r10\n[Ericsson] is fine with both r8 and r10\n[Nokia] is also fine with r10\n[Thales] clarifies\n[Philips] can live with r8\n[Orange] is ok with r8","WID new ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r8","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211773 ","New WID on certificate profiles for SBA ","Ericsson ",">>CC_6<<\nEricsson presents\nHuawei considers its not clear. has already existed text in TS. already has SBA study capture this. don't think need to have this WID\nVF comments there still discussed in email. needs more supporter\nEricsson clarifies\nDocomo wonders the CR is small, prefer to bring the WID together with CR directly at one shot.\n>>CC_6<<\n[Huawei] proposes to note\n>>CC_8<<\n\n>>CC_8<<","WID new ","Discussion ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211774 ","New WID on Security aspects of Uncrewed Aerial Systems ","Qualcomm Incorporated, Interdigital, Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Ericsson] proposes to update\n[Lenovo] would like to co-sign\n>>CC_6<<\nQC presents\n>>CC_6<<\n[Nokia] supports\n[QC] provides r1 to add supporting companies and address Ericsson's concern\n[MCC] has minor comments\n[QC] doesn't think second comment is applicable\n[Ericsson] is fine with r1","WID new ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211783 ","Information on the updates to the proposed WID on TLS protocol profiles for AKMA ","Qualcomm Incorporated ",">>CC_6<<\nQC presents\nEricsson is general fine and comments to change if to when\nVF asks whether there is a small work or need more time to specify\nQC clarifies that could be done with one CR\nCMCC supports\n>>CC_6<<","discussion ","Information ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211784 ","New WID on TLS protocols profiles for AKMA ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Ericsson] supports in general and proposs to update\n[CMCC] supports\n[ZTE] supports\n[QC] provides r1 to address all comments and to add the new supporters.\n[Ericsson] is fine with r1\n[QC] provides r2 due to typo\n[Ericsson] is fine with r2","WID new ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r2","S3‑210479 "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211892 ","New WID on Study on Security Aspects of Enhancement of Support for Edge Computing in 5GC ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",">>CC_6<<\nHuawei presents\nVF comments that is a new TS, wondering whether can be done in November.\nHuawei clarifies\nDocomo has concern on objective, proposes to have more concrete proposal\nLenovo doesn't understand why need a new TS\n>>CC_6<<\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Thales] proposes to set impacts for UICC as \"don't know\"\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Lenovo] considers easier to understand\n[Ericsson] requests update\n[Huawei] provides r3\n[Docomo] comments to the work should be completed by September\n[MCC] has comments\n[Huawei] provides r4 and asks chair to confirm whether all WID should be finished by September\n[Ericsson] is fine with r4\n[Samsung] is fine with r4\n[CMCC] supports and provides r5 with minor editorial and supporting companies\n[Lenovo] is fine with r5 and supports\n[ZTE] supports\n[QC] supports\n[Xiaomi] supports r5\n[Huawei] provides r6 to add all supporting companies\n[Nokia] supports\n>>CC_8<<\nHuawei presents status, r7 is preparing. \nVF comments it is unlikely to have new TS in two meeting cycles.\n>>CC_8<<\n[Ericsson] is ok with r6","WID new ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211892-r7","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211909 ","New WID on IoT Ua* protocol profiles for AKMA ","Ericsson, China Mobile ",">>CC_6<<\nEricsson presents\nVF would like to be supporting company if it is one shot WID\nHuawei considers it is too early to make this WID\n>>CC_6<<\n[Huawei] proposes to note\n[CMCC] supports\n[Ericsson] clarifies\n[QC] supports\n>>CC_8<<\nEricsson presents status, may not get through this time because of one objection\n>>CC_8<<","WID new ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211919 ","New WID on the security of AMF re-allocation ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] proposes to note\n[Ericsson] agrees to note\n>>CC_6<<\nEricsson presents and note this\n>>CC_6<<","WID new ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211923 ","New WID on Authentication enhancements in 5GS ","Ericsson ",">>CC_6<<\nEricsson presents that is placeholder for ongoing discussion\n>>CC_6<<\n>>CC_8<<\nEricsson present current status, and may not reach consensus\n>>CC_8<<\n[Ericsson] proposes to note","WID new ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
[4.22,"Other work areas (no release restrictions) ","S3‑211355 ","Agenda and notes from the SA3/IETF joint call ","SA WG3 Chair ",null,"other ","Information ","Yes ","No","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211965 ","Way forward for draft-ietf-emu-rfc5448bis ","Ericsson ",null,"discussion ","  ","Yes ","No","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211988 ","Removal of ENs for draft-ietf-emu-rfc5448bis - Rel-15 ","Ericsson ","[Qualcomm] Suggests updates\n[MCC] Suggests updates in CR cover\n[Ericsson] Corrected cover sheet and uploaded r1 incorporating updates from QC\n>>CC_8<<\n>>CC_8<<\n[Ericsson] provides revision of the Rel-16 and Rel-17 mirror CRs (draft_S3-211990 and draft_S3-211991) are in the drafts folder.\n[Qualcomm] fine with r1. suggests minor editorial in rel-16 mirror\n[Ericsson] provides r2","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","draft_S3-211988-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211990 ","Removal of ENs for draft-ietf-emu-rfc5448bis -Rel-16 ","Ericsson ",null,"CR ","  ","Yes ","No","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211991 ","Removal of ENs for draft-ietf-emu-rfc5448bis- Rel-17 ","Ericsson ",null,"CR ","  ","Yes ","No","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211453 ","WID IIoT Draft CR PTP aspects ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Nokia] Draft CR need to be changed to CR. Asks for MCC advice.\n[Huawei] Supports the change\n[Ericsson] Supports the change, requests to mark on ME impacts\n>>CC_6<<\nNokia presents the motivation CRs are one shot and can discuss the CR and close the WID\nThales asks whether we need to discuss WID first\nNokia clarifies\nNokia asks for W2-2nd challenge deadline\n>>CC_6<<\n[Nokia] Uploads r1\n[Ericsson] Fine with r1\n[Qualcomm] Proposes to untick the ME box and asks further clarification\n[Nokia] provides clarification\n[THALES] keep “don’t know” for UICC impacts\n[Qualcomm] Still doesnot see ME impacts\n[Nokia] uploads r2\n[Ericsson] fine with r2\n[Qualcomm] fine with r2\n","draftCR ","Endorsement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","draft_S3-211453-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211454 ","WID IIoT Draft CR NEF-AF aspects ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Nokia] Draft CR need to be changed to CR. Asks for MCC advice.\n[Huawei] Asks for clarification\n>>CC_6<<\nNokia asks for W2-2nd challenge deadline\n>>CC_6<<\n[Nokia] provides clarification\n[Huawei] Adds further comments\n[MCC] requests to reserve new tdoc\n[Nokia] provides r1\n[Nokia] provides r2 (to have normative texts)","draftCR ","Endorsement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","draft_S3-211454-r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211455 ","WID IIoT Draft CR Security considerations - informative ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Nokia] Draft CR need to be changed to CR. Asks for MCC advice.\n[Huawei] Proposes to note\n[Ericsson] Proposes to note\n[Qualcomm] proposes to note\n","draftCR ","Endorsement ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211474 ","[33.180] R14 UID encoding ","Motorola Solutions Danmark A/S ",null,"CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","No","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211475 ","[33.180] R15 UID encoding (mirror) ","Motorola Solutions Danmark A/S ",null,"CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","No","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211476 ","[33.180] R16 UID encoding (mirror) ","Motorola Solutions Danmark A/S ",null,"CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","No","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211478 ","[33.180] R17 UID encoding (mirror) ","Motorola Solutions Danmark A/S ",null,"CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","No","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211720 ","UE procedures at TAU reject in idle mode mobility from 5GS to EPS over N26 ","MediaTek Inc. / Marko ","[Huawei] Proposes to Note. Error cases mentioned in this pCR are better to be tackled with by CT1 and reflected in 24.501.\n[MediaTek] Fine to Note","CR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211722 ","UE procedures at TAU reject in idle mode mobility from 5GS to EPS over N26 ","MediaTek Inc. / Marko ","[Huawei] Proposes to Note. Error cases mentioned in this pCR are better to be tackled with by CT1 and reflected in 24.501.\n[MediaTek] Fine to Note","CR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211752 ","NRF services authorization and OAuth 2.0 client registration from Rel-15 onwards ","Ericsson, Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Nokia] r2 uploaded, propose to keep all misalignment topic (CT4/SA3 specs) under this thread 1752, propose to merge 1753, 1754,1755,1756,1757,1758,1888,1889\n[Nokia] uploaded a ppt, S3-212249-r1\n[Huawei] Suggests to discuss Rel-15/Rel-16 and Rel-17 separately\n[Nokia] Provides clarification\n[Nokia] r3 uploaded\n[Mavenir] provides further comments\n[Nokia] uploads r4 and provides clarification \n[Mavenir] summarizes the compromised way as discussed in OAuth Joint CC\n[Nokia] provides clarification to Mavenir\n[Huawei] proposes updates\n[Ericsson] provides clarification\n[Mavenir] provides concrete proposal\n[Nokia] provides r4\n[Ericsson] asks for further clarification on proposal\n[Huawei] adds comments","discussion ","Discussion ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","r4","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211753 ","Clarification on the NRF services authorization ","Ericsson, Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Nokia] proposes to merge 1753, 1754,1755,1756,1757,1758,1888,1889\n>>CC_6<<\nNokia suggests to continue discussion via email\n>>CC_6<<","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211754 ","Clarification on the NRF services authorization ","Ericsson, Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Nokia] proposes to merge 1753, 1754,1755,1756,1757,1758,1888,1889","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211915 ","AMF reallocation via direct NAS reroute: handling of UL NAS COUNT corresponding to RR message derivation ","Ericsson ",null,"discussion ","Discussion ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211755 ","Clarification on the NRF services authorization ","Ericsson, Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Nokia] proposes to merge 1753, 1754,1755,1756,1757,1758,1888,1889","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211756 ","Clarification on the OAuth 2.0 client registration ","Ericsson, Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Nokia] proposes to merge 1753, 1754,1755,1756,1757,1758,1888,1889","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211757 ","Clarification on the OAuth 2.0 client registration ","Ericsson, Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Nokia] proposes to merge 1753, 1754,1755,1756,1757,1758,1888,1889","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211758 ","Clarification on the OAuth 2.0 client registration ","Ericsson, Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Nokia] proposes to merge 1753, 1754,1755,1756,1757,1758,1888,1889","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211888 ","Clarification on the Oauth client registration ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Nokia] proposes to merge 1753, 1754,1755,1756,1757,1758,1888,1889\n[Ericsson]  If there is no agreement in the thread for 1752, this CR and its mirror 1889 should be not pursued.","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211889 ","Clarification on the Oauth client registration and authorization ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Nokia] proposes to merge 1753, 1754,1755,1756,1757,1758,1888,1889\n[Ericsson]  If there is no agreement in the thread for 1752, this CR should be not pursued.","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211891 ","Clarification on the static authorization ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Ericsson] proposes not pursue, but issue is valid and potential solutions should be discussed\n[MCC] Comments on CR cover \n[Huawei] provides clarificationa and uploads r1\n[Ericsson] needs further discussion\n[Huawei] provides clarification","CR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211795 ","Downlink NAS COUNT handling after creating NAS container in EPS to 5GS Handover ","Qualcomm Incorporated, Huawei, HiSilicon, CATT, ZTE ","[Ericsson] prefer TS 24.501 to be updated to align with TS 33.501\n>>CC_6<<\nQC presents\nHuawei supports\n>>CC_6<<\n[Ericsson] In order to progress E// accepts the CR\n","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211796 ","Downlink NAS COUNT handling after creating NAS container in EPS to 5GS Handover ","Qualcomm Incorporated, Huawei, HiSilicon, CATT, ZTE ",null,"CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211797 ","Downlink NAS COUNT handling after creating NAS container in EPS to 5GS Handover ","Qualcomm Incorporated, Huawei, HiSilicon, CATT, ZTE ",null,"CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211818 ","Clarifying the support for authentication methods in an SNPN ","Qualcomm Incorporated ",">>CC_6<<\nQC presents\n>>CC_6<<","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211819 ","Clarifying the support for authentication methods in an SNPN ","Qualcomm Incorporated ",null,"CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211886 ","Editor's note of the security of 5GLAN services removal in R16 ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",null,"CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","No","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211887 ","Editor's note of the security of 5GLAN services removal in R17 ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",null,"CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","No","agreed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211684 ","Clarify on ngKSI used in NAS SMC in Kausf storage ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Huawei] based on offline discussion decides the CR need not be pursued\n[Lenovo] Asks for calrification\n[Huawei] we agreed to merge the content into 2104, provides clarification\n[Lenovo] as the thread is closed will send comments in 2104","CR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212103 ","Rel16-Handling of Kausf upon successful primary authentication ","Samsung, NEC, Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell, Intel ","[Huawei] Suggests to update\n[Samsung] Provides clarification \n>>CC_6<<\nSamsung presents\n>>CC_6<<\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Ericsson]  provides r1 with comment by Ericsson.  draft-212103-r1_CR-Rel16-StorageKausf-v3_Ericsson\n[Qualcomm] suggests further revision\n[Samsung] provides r3\n>>CC_7<<\n[Samsung] presented the status\n[Chair] after a round of discussion, indicated to make progress on Rel-17 CR and question CT1, whether Rel-16 is possible, as SA3 prefers to have the updates from Rel-16\n>>CC_7<<\n[NTT DoCoMo] change AMF to SEAF in step 13 of 6.1.3.2.0. The whole clause uses the term SEAF.\n[Lenovo] aks for updates r3\n[Samsung] provides r4\n[Lenovo] suggests updates in r4\n[Samsung] will update in next version\n>>CC_8<<\nSamsung presents current status\n>>CC_8<<\n[Lenovo] suggests to add note\n[Samsung] will include the Lenovo proposed NOTE in the next version, for both S3-212103 and also in S3-212104 at Step 11.\n[Samsung] provides r6\n[Lenovo] fine with r6\n[Ericsson] suggests further updates\n[Samsung] provides r7\n[Ericsson] fine with r7. proposes to co-sign\n[Qualcomm] fine with r7\n[Lenovo] fine with r7","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","draft_S3-212103-r7","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212104 ","Rel17-Handling of Kausf upon successful primary authentication ","Samsung, NEC, Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell, Intel ","[Huawei] Suggests to update\n[Samsung] Provides clarification \n[Huawei] provides r1\n[MCC] suggests updates in CR cover\n[Ericsson] provided comments indraft_S3-212104-r1_Ericsson.Docx. \n[Ericsson] adds comments\n[Huawei] provides clarification on 1684\n[Lenovo] asks for clarification\n[Samsung] provides r3\n[Ericsson] asks further clarification\n[NEC] provides clarification to Lenovo\n[Huawei] provides clarification to Ericsson\n[Ericsson] Adds further comments\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Lenovo] responds to NEC's clarification \n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Lenovo] suggets updates to r3\n[Ericsson] adds further comments\n[NEC] provides clarification to Lenovo\n[Samsung] will provides the suggested changes in r3 by Lenovo in next revision\n[Lenovo] change 1 is fine but change 2 suggests to add NOTE on implementation specific handling required\n[Samsung] provides  r4\n[Lenovo] respons to Ericsson and samsung\n[Lenovo] agrees with NEC\n[samsung] provides r5\n[lenovo] fine with r5\n[Ericsson] suggests minor editorial\n[Samsung] provides r6\n[Ericsson] fine with r6\n[QC] fine with r6\n[Lenovo] fine with r6\n[Ericsson] fine with r6. proposes to co-sign\n","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","draft_S3-212104-r6","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211648 ","Address ENs in TS 33.216 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[MCC] suggests re-wording","CR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211822 ","Correction of Annex A.13 ","Ericsson ","[MCC] suggests changes in CR cover\n[Huawei] proposes to note","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212119 ","Correction of Annex A.13 ","Ericsson ","[MCC] suggests changes in CR cover\n[Qualcomm] suggests for revision\n[Huawei] proposes to note","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211873 ","Clarifications to 5G CIoT K_NG-RAN derivation ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Ericsson] Proposes to Note\n>>CC_6<<\n\n>>CC_6<<\n[MCC] if agreed mirror for rel-17 is needed","CR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211874 ","Claifications on mapped security ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[MCC] if agreed mirror for rel-17 is needed\n[Qualcomm] suggests revision\n[Huawei] provides r1","CR ","Approval ","Yes ","No","revised","No ","draft_S3-211874-r1","  Qualcomm r1 is fine?"]
["  ","  ","S3‑211885 ","UP Security policy requirement on the IMS data network ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Qualcomm] Proposes to note\n[Ericsson] proposes to note\n[Huawei] provides clarification","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","not pursued","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212092 ","Correction to FC values in range for future use in 3GPP specifications ","Samsung ","[Ericsson] Proposes to Note as updates are needed based on 1647\n[Huawei] proposes to merge with 1647\n[Samsung] Fine with merging\n[Ericsson] Fine with merging","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","draft_S3-211647-rx","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211683 ","EAP ID Request in NSSAA procedure ","Ericsson ",null,"discussion ","Discussion ","No ","No","reserved ","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211821 ","Correction of Annex A.13 ","Ericsson ",null,"CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
[5,"Study Areas ","  ","  ","  ",null,"  ","  ","  ","  ","  ","  ","  ","  "]
[5.0999999999999996,"Study on 5G security enhancement against false base stations ","S3‑211706 ","5GFBS-Draft LS to RAN2 on Solution#17 ","Apple ","[Samsung] better to remove the options provided in the LS and focus only on the backward compatibility issue \n[Samsung] provides r1\n[Apple] provides r2\n[QC] proposes to remove the 3rd Question \n[Samsung] suggests to consider r1\n[Huawei] request to delete the RRCRejectMessages from first para \n[QC] can accept r1\n[Huawei] can accept r1 with the deletion of RRCRejectMessages \n[Ericsson] ok with r1\n[Apple] provides r3 based on r1 with modification\n[Huawei] fine with r3\n[QC] fine with r3","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211706-r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212105 ","Updates to KI#1 & KI#7 ","Samsung ","[Huawei] proposes to note\n[Ericsson] comments\n[Samsung] provides clarification\n[Huawei] attack model is not clear and security threat is too generic\n[Ericsson] comments\n[Samsung] provides clarification\n[Ericsson] comments\n[Samsung] ok to bring back in next meeting","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211586 ","Remarks_in_Solution_14 ","Philips International B.V. ","[QC] comments\n[Philips] fine with the changes proposed by QC and provides clarification\n[QC] how the gNB can detect the presence of the fake beam if there is only single victim UE\n[Philips] provides clarification\n[QC] fine with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211586-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211588 ","Update_in_solution_26 ","Philips International B.V. ","[QC] asks for clarification\n[Philips] provides clarification\n[Ericsson] doc shows only one EN, while there are others too\n[Philips] provides r1\n[Apple] fine with r1 ","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211588-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211704 ","5GFBS-Conclusion for key issue#2 ","Apple ","[Philips] comments\n[QC] proposes to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211427 ","Reply LS to SA3 on FBS detection ","R2-2104626 ",null,"LS in ","  ","Yes ","No","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211576 ","Additions in Solution #25 ","Philips International B.V. ","[QC] proposes to note\n[Ericsson] notes cannot be deleted","pCR ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211582 ","Updates in Solution #23 ","Philips International B.V. ","[QC] proposes not to delete the EN\n[Philips] provides clarification\n[Philips] provides r1\n[QC] comments\n[Philips] provides r2\n[QC] fine with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211582-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211598 ","Update to solution #25 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Philips] proposes to merge with S3-211576\n[QC] proposes not to delete the two Notes\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Ericsson] notes cannot be deleted\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Ericsson] comments\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Ericsson] comments\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Ericsson] proposes changes on NOTE 1 and NOTE 2 as it is\n[QC] agrees with Ericsson's proposal\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[QC] fine with r1\n[Ericsson] fine with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211598-r1  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211599 ","Evaluation of solution #4 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Philips] asks for clarification\n[QC] comments\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n>>CC_7<<\n[Huawei] presented the pCR\n[Qualcomm] in general Ok to include the pCR. We need to evulate further from security point of view\n>>CC_7<<\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[QC] comments\n[Philips] agrees with the addition of futher evaluation is FFS\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Huawei] doesnot agree with the addition\n[Ericsson] comments\n[QC] proposes to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211600 ","Conclusion for KI#3 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[QC] proposes to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211702 ","5GFBS-Adding evaluation for solution#4 ","Apple ","[Philips] asks for clarification \n[QC] proposes to note\n[Apple] provides clarification\n[Huawei] ok with evaluation\n\n>>CC_7<<\n[Apple] presented the pCR\n[Qualcom] already present in the reply LS and other proposal, so need to remove the text\n[Ericsson] whether EN can be deleted\n[Qualcom] Can be, based on RAN reply LS\n[Ericsson] can be merged with Huawe\n>>CC_7<<\n","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211705 ","5GFBS-Conclusion for key issue#3 ","Apple ","[QC] proposes to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211522 ","Updating annex B in TR 33.809 ","CableLabs ","[Cable labs] provides r1\n[QC] comments\n[Huawei] compared to orginal version r1 has many changes and does not agree with r1\n[Cable labs] provides r2\n[Huawei] propose to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211584 ","Updates in Appendix B ","Philips International B.V. ","[Huawei] contribution is not needed\n[Apple] B2.1.3 is already covered in the existing text and should be removed\n[Philips] provides r1\n[QC] comments\n[Philips] provides clarification\n>>CC_7<<\n[Hauwei] not need to capture here as it provides knowledge to the attacker\n[Philips] prefer to have details\n>>CC_7<<\n[QC] comments\n[Philips] provides clarification\n[Philips] provides r2\n[QC] fine with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211703 ","5GFBS-Adding a new clause on Evaluations for key issues ","Apple ","[QC] proposes to note\n[Apple] could use to capture the horizontal analysis of solutions","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212106 ","[Draft] LS on feasibility of addressing the attacks against 5G UE over radio interfaces ","Samsung ",">>CC_7<<\n[Samsung] presented the LS\n[Ericsson], [Apple], [Qualcomm], [Huawei], [NTT DoCoMo] indicated that without solution details, it is difficult for RAN2 to estimate the time required and feasible in Rel-17.\n>>CC_7<<","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
[5.2,"Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products ","S3‑211825 ","Clarification on GVNP and 3GPP functinoality in 4.1.1 ","China Mobile ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211826 ","resolving EN about the GVNP lifecycle in clause 5.2.5.5.7.1 ","China Mobile ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211827 ","editorial modification in clause 5.2.5.6.8.5.3 and 5.2.5.7.6 ","China Mobile ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211828 ","Adding threat reference in clause 5.2.5.7.7.2 and 5.2.5.7.7.3 ","China Mobile ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211829 ","Modifying contents about decoupling scenarios ","China Mobile ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211830 ","Resolving EN about Figure 5.2.5.1-1 ","China Mobile ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211831 ","Adding vendor development and product lifecycle processes and test laboratory accreditation into Clause 6 ","China Mobile ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211832 ","proposal for way forward ","China Mobile ","[Ericsson] questions for clarification\n[CMCC] replies\n[Ericsson] is fine with clarification\n[Huawei] is fine with this","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211833 ","Clean up to existing editor's note ","China Mobile ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211834 ","Presentation of TR33.818 to SA plenary ","China Mobile ","[Huawei] has minor comments and provides r1\n[CMCC] is fine with r1","TS or TR cover ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212069 ","Type 1 threat ","Futurewei Technologies ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212070 ","Typye 2 Threats ","Futurewei Technologies ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212071 ","Type 3 Threats ","Futurewei Technologies ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212110 ","Clause 6.1 ","Futurewei Technologies ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
[5.3,"Study on User Plane Integrity Protection ","S3‑211425 ","Reply LS on User Plane Integrity Protection for eUTRA connected to EPC ","R2-2104349 ","[Chairs] proposes to postpone\n>>CC_1<<\n[Huawei] no need to reply that SA2 has replied already\n[VF] the response is already included in S3-211736, no need to reply, proposes to note\nProposed to note[1st challenge]\n>>CC_1<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211468 ","pCR to 33.853 - update to 7.2 following liaisons ","VODAFONE Group Plc ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211469 ","pCR to 33.853 - Removal of template sections ready for specification approval ","VODAFONE Group Plc ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211470 ","pCR to 33.853: editorial updates ","VODAFONE Group Plc ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211587 ","pCR to TR33.853 - editorial corrections ","VODAFONE Group Plc ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211593 ","Cover sheet for approval of TR33.853 ","VODAFONE Group Plc ",null,"TS or TR cover ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211612 ","pCR to TR33.845 - Resolution of editors notes for solution#2 ","VODAFONE Group Plc ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211613 ","pCR to TR33.845 - Resolution of editors notes for solution#3 ","VODAFONE Group Plc ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211614 ","pCR to TR33.845 - Resolution of editors notes for solutions 5 and 6 ","VODAFONE Group Plc ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211616 ","pCR to TR33.845 - Resolution of editors notes for solutions 9 and 10 ","VODAFONE Group Plc ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211649 ","Solution Update for Solution #28 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Qualcomm]: thinks the contribution needs changing before approval\n[Huawei] provides r1\n>>CC_4<<\n[Qualcomm] like to have agreed solution to refer in the LS in S3-211651\n>>CC_4<<\n[Qualcomm] would be OK with this pCR if you could remove the first line of the evaluation.\n[Huawei] uploaded r2\n[Qualcom] OK with r2\n\n","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","revised","No ","S3-212194","  "]
[null,null,"S3-212194","Solution Update for Solution #28 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ",null,"S3-211649"]
["  ","  ","S3‑211650 ","Conclusion for Key Issue #7 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Huawei] provides  r1, based on the discussion on S3-211649\n[Qualcomm] Ok with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","revised","No ","S3-212195","  "]
[null,null,"S3-212195","Conclusion for Key Issue #7 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ",null,"S3-211650"]
["  ","  ","S3‑211651 ","LS on Supporting UP Integrity Protection Policy Handling for Interworking from 5GS to EPS ","Huawei, HiSilicon ",">>CC_4<<\nit keeps open as based one 1649\nIt can be extended next week. And it's independent with the result of 1649\n>>CC_4<<\n[Huawei] provides  r1, based on the discussion on S3-211649\n[Qualcomm] Ok with r1","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","revised","No ","S3-212196","  "]
[null,null,"S-212196","LS on Supporting UP Integrity Protection Policy Handling for Interworking from 5GS to EPS ","Huawei, HiSilicon ",null,"LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ",null,"S3-211651"]
["  ","  ","S3‑211682 ","pCR to TR33.845 - Resolution of editors notes for solutions 11 13 14 and 15 ","VODAFONE Group Plc ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211688 ","pCR to TR33.845 - Resolution of editors notes for solutions 18 19 20 and 21 ","VODAFONE Group Plc ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211690 ","pCR to TR33.845 - Resolution of editors notes for solutions 22 23 24 26 ","VODAFONE Group Plc ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211718 ","pCR to TR33.845 - Resolution of editors notes for solutions 28 29 30 ","VODAFONE Group Plc ","[Huawei]: update is required\n[Vodafone] fine to remove the change from Clause 6.28.3.3 in as it is changed in 211649\n[Ericsson] ponts to a conflict with clause 6.30.4 \n[Vodafone] fine to remove the proposed change \n[Vodafone] provides  r2\n[Huawei]  fine with r2\n[Ericsson] fine with r2.","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","revised","No ","S3-212217","  "]
[null,null,"S3-212217","pCR to TR33.845 - Resolution of editors notes for solutions 28 29 30 ","VODAFONE Group Plc ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ",null,"S3-211718"]
["  ","  ","S3‑211721 ","pCR to TR33.853 - removal of template sections ","VODAFONE Group Plc ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211736 ","pCR to TR33.853 - Resolution of editors notes in Conclusions and Recommendations ","VODAFONE Group Plc ","[Qualcomm]: thinks the contribution needs changing before approval\n[Vodafone] provides  r1\n[Qualcomm] OK with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","revised","No ","S3-212218","  "]
[null,null,"S3-212218","pCR to TR33.853 - Resolution of editors notes in Conclusions and Recommendations ","VODAFONE Group Plc ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ",null,"S3-211736"]
["  ","  ","S3‑212115 ","UP IP: Update to solution #21 (Interworking handover from EPS to 5GS) ","Ericsson ","[Huawei]: updates are required before it’s acceptable\n[Ericsson] provides r1\n[Huawei] fine with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","revised","No ","S3-212133","  "]
[null,null,"S3-212133","UP IP: Update to solution #21 (Interworking handover from EPS to 5GS) ","Ericsson ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ",null,"S3-212115"]
["  ","  ","S3‑212116 ","UP IP: Update to solution #24 Interworking handover from 5GS to EPS ","Ericsson ","[Huawei]: updates are required before it’s acceptable\n[Ericsson] provides r1\n[Huawei] fine with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","revised","No ","S3-212134","  "]
[null,null,"S3-212134","UP IP: Update to solution #24 Interworking handover from 5GS to EPS ","Ericsson ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ",null,"S3-212116"]
["  ","  ","S3‑212117 ","UP IP: Update to solution #30 ","Ericsson ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
[null,null,"S3-212219","TR 33.853","Vodafone",null,"draftTR","Approval ","Yes","Yes","approved","No "]
[5.4,"Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation ","S3‑212120 ","Addition of Key Issue 26 Text ","BT plc ","[Huawei] agrees in general but requests clarification\n[BT] clarifies\n[Huawei] has further comments\n[BT] clarifies and provides proposals to proceed\n[Huawei] replies\n[BT] provides r1\n[Huawei] is fine with r1\n[Thales] proposes to update\n[BT] clarifies\n[Thales] is fine with proposed sentence\n[NCSC] supports\n[BT] provides r2\n[Thales] is fine with r2","pCR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212122 ","Addition of Key Issue 25 Text ","BT plc ","[Huawei] requests clarification\n[BT] clarifies\n[Huawei] proposes to add words to 2nd requirement\n[BT] proposes detailed change\n[Huawei] is fine with BT's proposal\n[BT] provides r1","pCR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
[5.5,"Study on authentication enhancements in 5GS ","S3‑211442 ","pCR to 33.846: update to solution #2.4 ","THALES ","[Nokia] comments for clarification\n[Thales] clarifies\n[Nokia] is fine with the clarification","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211505 ","Editor note removal on solution #2.9 MAC, SYNCH failure cause concealment ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[CMCC] comments for clarification\n[Nokia] clarifies\n[CMCC] proposes to add impact on USIM and UMD into the evaluation\n[Nokia] provides r1 to capture the comment\n[CMCC] is fine with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211505-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211561 ","Update to mapping table ","ZTE Corporation ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211434 ","pCR to TR 33.846: Clarification on Key Issue #2.2 ","THALES ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211509 ","EN removal on SUCI generation by legitimate SUPI owner using KSUCI ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Thales] proposes to note\n[Nokia] clarifies and proposes two options\n[Thales] objects 1509 but withdrawn objection to 1510\n[Nokia] clarifies","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211528 ","Resolving ENs of solution 6.2.10 ","NEC Corporation ","[Ericsson] comments for clarification\n[Ericsson] proposes to note unless clarified\n[NEC] provides r1\n[Ericsson] has more comments\n[NEC] provides r2\n[Ericsson] has comments on the expression \"the UE sends data\"\n[NEC] is fine with Ericsson's proposal\n[NEC] provides r3\n[Ericsson] is fine with r3","pCR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211535 ","Evaluation of solution #2.10 ","NEC Corporation ","[Ericsson] comments to update\n[Ericsson] proposes to note unless clarified\n[NEC] would like to bring it in next meeting","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211560 ","EN resolution on null scheme for solution 2.7 ","ZTE Corporation ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211562 ","Update to solution 2.7 and evaluation table ","ZTE Corporation ","[Ericsson] proposes to note unless clarified\n[ZTE] provides r1 to address Ericsson's concern\n[Ericsson] is fine with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211435 ","pCR to TR 33.846: Clarification on Key Issue #3.2 ","THALES ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211558 ","Add evaluation and update comparison table for solution 3.2 ","ZTE Corporation ","[Ericsson] comments to update\n[ZTE] clarifies and provides r1\n[Ericsson] is fine with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211636 ","Update to the solution 3.3 ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Ericsson] comments to update\n[Ericsson] proposes to note unless clarified\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[Ericsson] proposes detailed update\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Ericsson] proposes to make change on last part of the new text\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Ericcson] is fine with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211503 ","Discussion on the solution#4.1 in TR 33.846 ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[QC] proposes to note as discussion paper","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211504 ","Evaluation of sol#4.1 using MACS as freshness in calculation of AK ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[QC] proposes to note\n[Nokia] clarifies but doesn't agree with QC's comment\n[QC] doesn't agree there is problem for regular AKA so doesn't agree with the evaluation","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211559 ","Add evaluation for solution 4.5 ","ZTE Corporation ","[Ericsson] comments to update\n[ZTE] clarifies and provides r1 to address concern\n[Ericsson] is fine with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211563 ","Update to solution 4.5 for the scenario of UE triggered service request ","ZTE Corporation ","[Nokia] comments for clarification\n[ZTE] clarifies\n[Nokia] has further comments\n[ZTE] clarifies\n[ZTE] asks for Nokia's confirmation or further comments\n[Nokia] is fine with this contribution\n[Huawei] asks question for clarification\n[ZTE] clarifies\n[Nokia] considers to repeat the same discussion as 102bis-e\n[Huawei] is fine to approve","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211836 ","Solution to mitgate the SUPI guessing attack without changing the format of SUCI ","China Mobile ","[Ericsson] proposes to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","ntoed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211837 ","Solution to mitigate the SUPI guessing attack and SUCI replay attack by adding new MAC tag in SUCI ","China Mobile ","[Ericsson] proposes to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211436 ","pCR to TR 33.846: update of assessment of attack risk ","THALES, Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211437 ","pCR to 33.846: update of impact of solutions ","THALES ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211529 ","Evaluation of key issue 2.2 SUCI replay attack. ","NEC Corporation ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211786 ","Some proposed text for the assessment of attack risk table ","Qualcomm Incorporated, Vodafone ","[CMCC] comments for clarification","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","S3‑211057 "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211835 ","Assessment of attack risk ","China Mobile ","[QC] proposes to note\n[CMCC] clarifies","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211506 ","Conclusion on Key issue #2.1 ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",">>CC_6<<\nNokia presents\nQC doesn't agree\n>>CC_6<<","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211507 ","Conclusion on Key issue #3.2 SUPI guessing attack ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell,THALES ",">>CC_6<<\nNokia presents\nHuawei disagrees with this conclusion, comments the threat is valid to dedicated network.\nEricsson agrees with this conclusion\n>>CC_6<<\n[Huawei] objects ","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211508 ","Conclusion on Key issue #4.1 ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",">>CC_6<<\nNokia presents\nQC doesn't agree with this. \nCMCC disagree with this conclusion, comments no nomative work needed\nHuawei supports Nokia\nNEC considers there is no consensus on conclusion. would suggest to consider how to conclude, i.e. to make evaluation first\nEricsson clarifies want to discuss conclusion to seek potential consensus. If no, can go back to evaluation\n>>CC_6<<\n[QC] proposes to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211564 ","Conclusion for the key issue#4.1 ","ZTE Corporation ",">>CC_6<<\nZTE presents\nHuawei disagrees this. Time based solution has synchronization issue\nThales disagrees.\nZTE clarifies it does not support time based. \n>>CC_6<<\n[Nokia] requests update\n[ZTE] agrees with Nokia and provides r1\n[Nokia] is fine with r1\n[Ericsson] comments for clarification\n[Verizon] request to note the approach should not mandatory to use but optional\n[Ericsson] agrees with Verizon and asks to provide a concrete note\n[ZTE] is fine to add such NOTE and waits for detailed wording\n[Verizon] asks Ericsson to provide such NOTE\n[ZTE] provides detailel NOTE and r2 for further comment\n[Verizon] is fine with r2\n[QC] request to revise\n[ZTE] comments on Qc's comment\n[QC] proposes detailed wording update\n[ZTE] provides r3\n[Thales] proposes to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211787 ","Proposed conclusion for key issue #4.1 ","Qualcomm Incorporated, Vodafone ","[CMCC] comments for clarification\n>>CC_6<<\nQC presents\nNokia doesn't agree with this.\nHuawei disagrees. There is discussion to mention the weaknees of solution 4.1 from Nokia, so coud not agree to use this solution as conclusion.\nVerizon comments it's premature of QC's solution.\n>>CC_6<<\n[Nokia] proposes to note\n[Verizon] proposes to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211788 ","Proposed conclusion for the linkability parts of key issues #2.1 and 2.2 ","Qualcomm Incorporated, Vodafone, DoCoMo ","[CMCC] proposes to note\n[NEC] supports the conclusion\n[CMCC] doesn't agree with NEC\n[NEC] clarifes its comments\n>>CC_6<<\nQC presents\nNEC supports this conclusion\nCMCC doesn't agree\nQC clarifies\nDocomo asks why to use over the air encryption if consider the linkabiliity risk is high\n>>CC_6<<\n[Huawei] proposes to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211966 ","pCR to 33.846: conclusion for KI #2.1 ","THALES ",">>CC_6<<\nThales presents\nQC doesn't agree\nEricsson doesn't agree as it impacts serving network\n>>CC_6<<\n[QC] proposes to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211967 ","pCR to 33.846: conclusion for KI#4.1 ","THALES ",">>CC_6<<\nThales presents\nHuawei disagrees.\nDocomo asks way forward in general to reach consensus\nChair suggests to have comparison matrix and separate conf call to solve this issue\n>>CC_6<<\n[Nokia] proposes to note\n[QC] proposes to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211921 ","Authentication enhancements: TR editorials ","Ericsson ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211922 ","Authentication enhancements: Clause 4 ","Ericsson ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211924 ","Authentication enhancements: Discussion about the WID ","Ericsson ","[Ericsson] proposes to note as discussion paper","discussion ","Discussion ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211364 ","Reply to LS on Resynchronisations ","ETSI SAGE ","[CMCC] proposes to revise\n[Nokia] comments for clarification\n[Ericsson] considers the comments for 1496, and request to copy comment to 1496 thread if it was the intention\n[Ericsson] proposes to postpone","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","postponed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211496 ","Draft reply to ETSI SAGE on Resynchronisations ","VODAFONE Group Plc ","[CMCC] proposes to revise\n[Nokia] proposes to note","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211510 ","LS on Security risk evaluation of using long term key for another key derivation than AKA ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Thales] proposes to note\n[Thales] withdraws its objection and provides r1\n[Nokia] is fine with r1\n[Ericsson] is not ok with r1, provides r2\n[Nokia] is fine with r2\n[Thales] is fine with r2","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211471 ","pCR to TR 33.853 - resolution of editors notes ","VODAFONE Group Plc ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
[5.6,"Study on storage and transport of 5GC security parameters for ARPF authentication ","S3‑211531 ","pCR to TR 33.845 - editorial corrections ","VODAFONE Group Plc ","[KPN] comments on editorials and provides r1\n[VF] is fine with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211532 ","Cover Sheet for approval of TR 33.845 ","VODAFONE Group Plc ",null,"TS or TR cover ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211533 ","pCR to TR 33.845 - removal of template sections ","VODAFONE Group Plc ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211581 ","pCR to TR33.845 - removal of editors notes ","VODAFONE Group Plc ","[Docomo] that is an empty contribution\n[VF] provides r1\n[Docomo] comments on 2nd EN to proposes to discuss in next meeting\n[KPN] comments to revise r2\n[VF] is fine with r2\n[Docomo] is fine with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_s3-211581-r2","  "]
[5.7,"Study on security aspects of Unmanned Aerial Systems ","S3‑211385 ","Support of UAVs authentication/authorization in 3GPP systems and interfacing with USS/UTM ","GSMA ","[Chairs] proposes to postpone\n>>CC_1<<\n[Huawei] Propose to have internal disc to make decision. Like to have a reply.\n>>CC_1<<\n[Huawei] propose to postpone this LS. ","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","postponed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211386 ","3GPP SA1 clarifications on problematic UAV ","GSMA ","[Chairs] proposes to note.\n>>CC_1<<\n[Huawei] agrees to note\nPropose to note(1st challenge)\n>>CC_1<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211606 ","Evaluation of solution #3 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Interdigital]: proposal needs update to be approved\n[Qualcomm] agree with Interdigital comments\n[Huawei]: provides clarification\n[Interdigital] propose compromised text\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Interdigital] don’t want this eval to turn into a pros and cons vs EAP\n[Huawei] accept the last version and put it into r1\n[Interdigital] suggest way forward\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Interdigital] propose to Co-sign\n[Qualcomm] Ok with r2\n[Huawei] fine to add Interdigital as co-signer\n\n\n","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211606-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211607 ","Evaluation of solution #5 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Interdigital]: Updates are required to be approved\n[Qualcomm] agree with Interdigital comments in the thread on S3-211607\n[Huawei] provides r1 (text as in 606 is included in 607r1)\n[Interdigital] suggest way forward\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Interdigital] propose to Co-sign\n[Qualcomm] Ok with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3‑211607-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211617 ","propose evaluation to Solution #16 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211775 ","Update to solution #6 on obtaining UAV location information from the PLMN ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Interdigital]: asks questions for clarification \n[Qualcomm]: provides clarification\n[Interdigital] go ahead with r1\n[Qualcomm] provides r1\n[Interdigital] Ok with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3‑211775-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211776 ","Update to solution #10 on authentication and authorisation of UAVs ","Qualcomm Incorporated ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211777 ","Update to solution #13 on authorisation of UAV/UAVC when connected to EPS ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Interdigital]: asks questions for clarification \n[Qualcomm]: propose modified text \n[Interdigital] fine with proposed text\n[Huawei] comments\n[Qualcomm]: propose modified text \n[Huawei] fine with modified text\n[Interdigital] fine with proposed text\n[Interdigital] proposes text for r2 (fine with r1)\n[Qualcomm] uploads r1 \n[Qualcomm] proposes text for r2\n[Qualcomm] provides r2\n[Interdigital] OK with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3‑211777-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211778 ","Update to solution #14 on authorisation of UAV/UAVC pairing when connected to 5GS ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Ericsson] requires clarification\n[Qualcomm] provides clarification\n[Ericsson] fine with r1\n","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3‑211778-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212050 ","Update to solution #2 ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] provides few comments to the updates\n[Ericsson] provides r1 \n[Huawei] comments\n[Ericsson] provides r2\n[Huawei] fine with 2\n\n","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3‑212050-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211487 ","TR 33.854 KI#1 conclusion ","InterDigital, Europe, Ltd. ","[Huawei]: concern on having detailed steps in conclusion\n[Qualcomm]: provides couple of comments\n[Ericsson] suggest comments and updates\n[Lenovo] Merging S3-211608 and S3-211487 is fine. Prefer to have the conclusion description at high level and leave the finer details up to normative work\n[Interdigital] suggest to start with 487 as the conclusion\n[Interdigital] OK to start merging into 608 and take common agreed principles from 487\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Interdigital] let’s use S3-211608 thread as baseline for the discussion\n[Interdigital] thread is closed and considered merged into S3-211608\nmerged into S3-211608","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","draft_S3‑211608-r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211488 ","TR 33.854 KI#2 conclusion ","InterDigital, Europe, Ltd. ","[Qualcomm]: suggest to capture a Note and provides text for the Note\n[Huawei] propose to start with 609 and open to adding in some essential statements (principles)\n[Ericsson]: shares concerns/comments/update proposals\n[Interdigital] provides clarifications\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Interdigital] let’s use S3-211609 thread as baseline for the discussion\n[Interdigital] thread is closed and considered merged into S3-211609\nmerged into S3-211609","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","draft_S3‑211609-r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211489 ","TR 33.854 KI#4 conclusion ","InterDigital, Europe, Ltd. ","[Qualcomm]: suggest to capture a Note and provides text for the Note\n[Qualcomm] propose conclusion for key issue #4.\n[Interdigital] proides r1\n[Qualcomm] propose to include NOTE\n[Interdigital] proides r2\n[Qualcomm] fine with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3‑211489-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211608 ","Conclusion for KI#1 (AA) ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Interdigital]: propose to merge this into S3-211487\n[Interdigital]: asks question for clarification \n[Huawei]: can consider merging 487 and 608\n[Qualcomm]: agrees that merging the contributions would be good \n[Huawei] propose to use 608 (high level agreement) as the baseline (as discussed under threat 487).\n[Interdigital] see thread 487 discussion on proposed key principles to capture in 608\n>>CC_4<<\n[Qualcomm] suggested updates were not reflected\n[Ericsson] suggested updates were not reflected\n>>CC_4<<\n[Ericsson] contribution has been merged into 487\n[Interdigital] agreed for the discussion to continue on 608 for KI#1 (and on 609 for KI#2)\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Interdigital] provides comments on r1\n[Lenovo] comments on r1\n[Interdigital] consider 487 is merged\n[Lenovo] clarification on the comments\n[Interdigital] comments\n[Huawei] text proposal\n[Interdigital] text proposal is fine\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Interdigital] fine with r2\n[Ericsson] comments\n[Interdigital] comments\n[Ericsson] suggest text updates\n[Interdigital] fine with suggested updates\n[Qualcomm] needs some further updates \n[Huawei] provides r3\n[Interdigital] fine with r3\n[Lenovo] fine with r3\n[Ericsson] comments\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Ericsson] OK with r3\n[Qualcomm] OK with r3","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3‑211608-r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211609 ","Conclusion for KI#2 (pairing) ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Interdigital]: propose to merge this into S3-211488\n[Qualcomm]: agrees that merging the contributions would be good \n[Huawei] to use 609 as the baseline \n[Interdigital] see thread 488 discussion on proposed key principles to capture in 609\n[Interdigital] provides comments on r1\n[Interdigital] consider 488 is merged\n[Lenovo] comments on r1\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Interdigital] fine with r2\n[Qualcomm] needs some further updates \n[Ericsson] supports Qualcomm\n[Interdigital] OK with Qualcomm updates\n[Huawei] provides r3\n[Interdigital] fine with r3\n[Lenovo] fine with r3\n[Qualcomm] OK with r3\n[Ericsson] Ok with r3","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3‑211609-r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211610 ","Conclusion for KI#7 (C2) ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Interdigital]: OK with this proposal and we would like to co-sign\n[Qualcomm]: propose a re-wording of the text\n[Ericsson] propose usage of “transparent container” \n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Interdigital]:fine with r1\n[Lenovo] fine with submitted version and r1. Like to co-sign this document\n[Ericsson] fine with r1\n[Huawei] provides r2 (includes co-signers)\n[Ericsson] fine with r2. Points out change over changes\n[Qualcomm] think changes are still needed\n[Huawei] provides r3\n[Interdigital] fine with r3\n[Lenovo] fine with r3\n[Qualcomm] OK with r3\n[Ericsson] Ok with r3\n\n","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3‑211610-r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211740 ","Mapping of Key Issues ","Lenovo, Motorola Mobility ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
[5.8,"Study on Security Aspects of Enhancement of Support for Edge Computing in 5GC ","S3‑211391 ","Reply LS on IP address to GPSI translation ","S2-2009339 ","[Chair] to be replied to in 1780/2048?\n>>CC_1<<\n[Huawei] proposes to left for email discussion\n[Qualcomm] agrees with Huawei\n>>CC_1<<\n>>CC_3<<\n[Huawei] needs further discussion\n>>CC_3<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","treated","No ","  To be replied in S3-212048","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211392 ","Reply LS on IP address to GPSI translation ","S2-2101307 ","[Chair] to be replied to in 1780/2048?\n>>CC_1<<\n[Huawei] proposes to left for email discussion\n[Qualcomm] agrees with Huawei\n>>CC_1<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","treated","No ","  To be replied in S3-212048","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211405 ","LS on EDGEAPP ","S6-210630 ","[Chair] proposes to note\n>>CC_1<<\n[Huawei] proposes to note.SA3 can reply after the conclusion is made.\nProposal to note(1st challenge)\n>>CC_1<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211406 ","Reply LS on clarification regarding EEC ID ","S6-210707 ","[Chair] proposes to note\n>>CC_1<<\nHuawei] comment to leave 2nd question for SA3, can keep it open and further discussion by email\n[Apple] agrees with Huawei, need to ask more to SA6\n>>CC_1<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211423 ","3GPP Edge Computing coordination ","S6-210978 ","[Chair] proposes to note\n>>CC_1<<\nProposed to note(1st challenge)\n>>CC_1<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211424 ","Reply LS on IP address to GPSI translation ","S6-211082 ","[Chair] to be replied to in 1780/2048","LS in ","  ","Yes ","No","treated","No ","  To be replied in S3-212048","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211779 ","Discussion on an SA2 LS on IP address to GPSI translation ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Huawei] proposes to note this DP and focus on the content of draft LS\n>>CC_2<<\n>>CC_2<<","discussion ","Information ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211780 ","Proposed reply LS on IP address to GPSI translation ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Huawei] proposes to use S3-212048 as the baseline\n>>CC_2<<\n1780 and 2048 should be merged.\n[Lenovo] prefers to use 1780 as baseline\n>>CC_2<<\nMerged into S3-212048","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211514 ","Discussion on ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai-Bell ","[Huawei] proposes to note this DP and focus on the content of draft LS. proposes to use S3-212048 as the baseline\n>>CC_2<<\n>>CC_2<<","discussion ","Endorsement ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212047 ","Discussion on IP address to GPSI translation ","Ericsson ",">>CC_2<<\n>>CC_2<<","discussion ","Discussion ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212048 ","Reply LS on IP address to GPSI translation ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] fine with the answers on Q1, Q2, Q3 and do not see any advantages of the use of temporary GPSI\n>>CC_2<<\n[Huawei] comments 1780 and 2048 should be merged, as use 2048 as baseline. Because Huawei indicates it has commented in email for 1780.\nIt is decided to use 2048 as baseline to merge 1780 and email thread for further discussion\n>>CC_2<< \n[QC] comments and prefers QC document (780) \n{Apple] agree with QC, not appropriate to say SA3 has concluded on temporary identifiers. \n[Huawei] comments\n>>CC_4<<\n[Qualcomm] like to extend the deadline to next week and possible to send it early next week for SA2 to consider in their upcoming meeting \nHuawei and Apple are fine to extend\n>>CC_4<<\n[QC] still not ok to send LS and provides comments\n[Huawei] fine with QC's proposal on Q2 and Q3\n[Ivy] fine with QC's answer on Q2. But not with Q3\n[Huawei] comments \n[Apple] fine with Huawei's comments\n[Ericsson] comments\n[Ericsson] provides r1\n[Apple] not fine with r1\n[QC] issue with wording in Q3\n[Ericsson] comments\n[Lenovo] fine with r1","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  r3 approved (clean version S3-212355 )","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211444 ","pCR to 33.839: GBA-based solution for EEC authentication and authorization framework with ECS and EES ","THALES ","[Huawei] proposes to revise the contribution. Also proposes to add EN to capture the privacy issue under step 4 and 9\n[Thales] provides clarification. Proposed EN to capture the privacy issue is already addressed in previous meeting \n[Ericsson] steps 1-3 has impacts on primary auth\n[Huawei] proposes to update the evaluation part with the privacy concerns\n[Thales] why to consider GBA impacts primary auth\n[Ericsson] provides clarification\n[Thales] comments and clarifications\n[Thales] provides r1\n[Huawei] generally fine but proposes changes on formulation of identity privacy\n[Ericsson] fine with r1\n[Thales] provides r2 which includes Huawei's comments\n[Huawei] fine with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211565 ","S3-21XXXX Authentication and Authorization with ECS EES EAS ","ZTE Corporation ","[Huawei] asks for clarifications and proposes to capture UE and AMF impacts, EN on further evaluation is FFS\n[ZTE] provides r1\n[Ericsson] comments\n[ZTE] ok to add Ens\n[Huawei] solution is very similar to sol#7. proposal is to add more information on sol#7 conclusion - E-TID and MAC are left for normative work\n[ZTE] comments\n[Ericsson] for way forward, Huawei's proposal could be better\n[ZTE] ok to noted\n[Huawei] marked as noted","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211580 ","Updates to solution 4 ","Intel K.K. ","[Ericsson] benefits of secondary auth is not clear\n[Intel] provides clarification\n[Ericsson] comments\n[Intel] provides clarification\n[Ericsson] comments\n[Intel] provides clarification\n[Huawei] suggests to discuss the concrete proposal \n[Ericsson] postpone","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211583 ","Proposal for conclusion for Key Issue 1,2,4,6 ","Intel K.K. ","[Huawei] proposes to merge with 893\n>>CC_2<<\nOnly conclusion for key issue #1 is discussed\n>>CC_2<<\nMerged into S3-211893","pCR ","  ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211628 ","Solution Evaluation for solution 8 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Ericsson] comments\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Ericsson] fine with r1\n[Apple] provides comments\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Apple] provides comments\n[Huawei] provides r3\n[Ericsson] ok with r3\n[Apple] ok with r3","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211708 ","MEC-Adding evaluation on Solution#8 ","Apple ","[Huawei] comments\n[Apple] provides clarification\n[CMCC] why to assume there will be multiple EECs for one AF\n[Apple] EEC ID is prefered over AF ID for key generation\n[Huawei] same consern as CMCC raised\n[Apple] provides clarification\n[QC] how the issue is different with multiple EECs\n[Apple] comments\n[Apple] provides r1\n[Huawei] not ok with r1\n[Apple] comments\n[Apple] ok to note\n[Huawei] comments","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211711 ","MEC-Adding evaluation on Solution#17 ","Apple ","[Ericsson]  poposes to note and cntinue discussion in 2045 and 2046\n[Apple] provides clarification\n[Apple] provides r1\n[Ericsson] postpone it to next meeting","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211890 ","Discussion on the Authentication, Authorization and Data Protection between EEC and EES/ECS ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Ericsson] can be noted","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211893 ","EC: Conclusion for Key issue #1 ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Huawei] 583, 2109 is merged\n[Lenovo] Do not agree to sol #4, and concerns on using AKMA here, as AKMA cannot fulfil the roaming scenario\n[QC] no issue with AKMA when the UE is roaming\n[Huawei] agrees with QC that no issue on AKMA, regarding GPSI issue needs to check with SA6\n[Thales] premature to conclude solutions\n[Intel] provides clarification on sol #4 inclusion\n[Huawei] not against using GBA. proposes EN to use GBA methods for key sharing and data protection between EEC and EES\n[Intel] fine with Huawei's proposal\n[Huawei] both the token and certificate are already captured in 893\n[Ericsson] S3-211444-solution has impact on primary auth. Also having concern with the Huawei's proposal as the secondary auth is not good way to address Application layer KIs.\n[Lenovo] provides clarification on using secondary auth \n[Ericsson] use of Kamf has big impact\n[Lenovo] using home network based kausf in roaming scenario also has impact \n[Ericsson] fine with the first bullet (using AKMA and TLS for auth) and not with using certificate based TLS authentication\n[lenovo] in general CCA cannot be used\n>>CC_2<<\n[QC] has concerns on solution 23\n[Apple] disagrees to use AKMA\n[Lenovo]\n[Ericsson]\n[Intel]\n[Huawei]\n>>CC_2<<\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Apple] comments\n[Ericsson] usage of token in authentication is not clear\n[Samsung] prefers solution 3 also in the conclusion in r1\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Samsung] provides reasoning for the need to use AKMA+ TLS based solution\n[Lenovo] not fine with conclusion\n[Huawei]  provides clarification\n[CMCC] fine with r1\n[Thales] premature to conclude\n[Huawei]  provides clarification\n[QC] Not fine with adding sol#3 and sol#23 in the conclusion part. Only high level solution is enough\n[Ericsson] Comments\n[Huawei]  provides clarification\n[Huawei]  provides r2\n[Lenovo] comments\n[Huawei]  provides r3\n[Lenovo] fine with r3\n[QC] comments\n[Apple] proposes to note \n[Huawei]  provides r4\n[Ericsson] not ok with r4\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Ericsson] comments\n[Huawei] provides r5\n[Ericsson] ok with r5\n[Apple] not ok with r5\n[Thales] not fine\n[Huawei] proposes to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211993 ","eEDGE: Add Editor’s Notes and Additional Evaluation to Solution #5 ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211994 ","eEDGE: Add Editor’s Notes and Additional Evaluation to Solution #6 ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211995 ","eEDGE: Add Editor’s Notes and Additional Evaluation to Solution #7 ","Xiaomi Technology ","[Lenovo] Comments and asks for revision\n[Xiaomi] provides clarifications and requested revision from Lenovo side\n[Lenovo] provides r1\n[Xiaomi] provides r2\n[Lenovo] fine with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211987 ","pCR to TR 33.839: Using TLS with Edge Security Service to protect edge interfaces ","THALES ","[Ericsson] proposes to note\n[Thales] provides clarification\n[Thales] providesr1\n[Ericsson] proposes to add EN\n[Thales] providesr2\n[Ericsson] ok with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212043 ","Update Solution #17: Resolving EN on TLS ID ","Ericsson ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212044 ","Update to Solution #17: Resolving EN on Token Usage ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] asks for clarifications \n[Ericsson] provides clarification\n[Huawei] comments","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212045 ","Update to Solution #17: Resolving EN on Multiple GPSI ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] asks for clarifications and updates\n[Ericsson] provides clarification and agreed to add a NOTE\n[Huawei] comments\n[Ericsson] provides r1\n[Huawei] comments\n[Ericsson] provides r2\n[Huawei] fine with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212046 ","Evaluation of Solution #17 ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] asks for clarifications and updates on evaluation part\n[Lenovo] adds more point on evaluation - procedure to configure UE with GPSI\n[QC] additional points to be added on Evaluation\n[Ericsson] provides r1\n[Ericsson] provides r2 by including Huawei's comment\n[Huawei] not fine with r2\n[Lenovo] comments\n[Ericsson] provides r3\n[Lenovo] fine with r3\n[Huawei]  proposes changes\n[Ericsson] provides r4\n[QC] ok with r4\n[Huawei] ok with r4\n[Lenovo] fine with r4","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r4","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212049 ","LS on EAS and ECS identifiers ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] proposes to note \n[Ericsson] provides clarifications\n>>CC_4<<\npostpone to next meeting\n>>CC_4<<\n[Huawei] LS can send once conclusion is stable\n[Ericsson] LS is independent from conclusion\n[Huawei] proposes to note ","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212051 ","Update to Solution #17: Handling multiple GPSI in IP address to GPSI translation ","Ericsson ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212068 ","Removal of Editor’s Notes ","Lenovo, Motorola Mobility ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212082 ","[EDGE] Resolving EN1 in Solution#3 ","Samsung ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212083 ","[EDGE] Resolving EN3 in Solution#3 ","Samsung ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212084 ","[EDGE] Evaluation for solution#3 ","Samsung ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212109 ","[EDGE] Conclusion for KI#1, KI#2 and KI#6 ","Samsung ","[Huawei] Merged into 893\n[Samsung] sol#7 is totally independent of AKMA\n[Huawei] both sol#7 and AKMA could be used to generate shared key between UE and application\n[Lenovo] supports samsung's view. Prefers to have a solution that supports during roaming and the impact is limited  \n>>CC_2<<\nDue to time limit, just presentaion without any comment\n>>CC_2<<\n[QC] do not agree with this contribution\n[Ericsson] thread is closed\n[Huawei] thread is open for adding the possibility of sol #7\n[ZTE] supports this contribution\n[CMCC] still not clear with the issue discussed on roaming in AKMA and MEC\n[Lenovo] not fine with AKMA approach in case of roaming\n[Xiaomi] fine with adding EN in 893 on AKMA issue","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211629 ","Solution Evaluation for solution 11 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Ericsson] comments\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Ericsson] ok with r1\n","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211709 ","MEC-Adding evaluation on Solution#9 ","Apple ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211710 ","MEC-Adding evaluation on Solution#11 ","Apple ","[Huawei] comments","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211712 ","MEC-New solution on authentication between EEC and ECS ","Apple ","[Ericsson] asks for clarification\n[Apple] provides clarification\n[Huawei] asks for clarification\n[Apple] provides clarification\n[Apple] provides r1\n[Ericsson] ok with r1\n[Huawei] ok with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211713 ","MEC-Kedge ID generation method ","Apple ","[Huawei] proposes editorial corrections\n[Apple] provides r1\n[Huawei] ok with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211781 ","Proposed evaluation text for solution #23 ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Huawei] proposes to merge with 853\nMerged into S3-211853","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211853 ","add evaluation to solution #23 ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Ericsson] asks for clarification on AKMA and GPSI validation\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[QC] comments\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Ericsson] comments\n[QC] require changes to r1\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Ericsson] ok with r2\n[QC] ok with r2\n","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211859 ","EN removal of solution #9 ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Ericsson] comments\n[Huawei] comments\n[Ericsson] provides clarification\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Ericsson] r1 is ok ","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211894 ","EC: Conclusion for Key issue #2 ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Ericsson] comments\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Ericsson] not fine with r1\n[lenovo] not find the need for matidating AKMA nor certificate provisioning\n[QC] proposes changes, not ok with the addition of sol#8 and sol#23 in conclusion\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Lenovo] proposes to add EN on AKMA issue\n[Huawei] provides r3\n[Lenovo] ok with r3\n[Ericsson] proposes to add token based auth of EEC by EES\n[Huawei] Ericsson's proposal could be addressed in next meeting\n[Ericsson] proposes EN on auth token\n[Huawei] provides r4\n[Ericsson] ok with r4\n[Thales] objects","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211589 ","Updates to solution 12 ","Intel K.K. ","[Huawei] provides comments, conclusion overlaps with 895\n[Intel] provides clarification\n[Huawei] 895 can be merged with 589. Update 589 with static authorization of 894 and a NOTE\n[Intel] provides r1\n[Huawei] add static authorization of 895\n[Intel] provides r2\n[Huawei] ok with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211895 ","EC: Conclusion for Key issue #3 ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Intel] Discussion for KI is in 589\nmerged with 589\nMerged into S3-211589","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211896 ","EC: Conclusion for Key issue #4 and Key issue #5 ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Huawei] suggests to mergewith1896\n[Xiaomi] ok to merge, but not fine with the rationale\nmerged with 996","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211996 ","eEDGE: Conclusion for Key Issue #4 ","Xiaomi Technology ","[Huawei] provides comments, contribution overlaps with 896\n[Xiaomi] ok with merger and r1\nMerged into S3-211896","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211445 ","pCR to 33.839: Using TLS with GBA to protect edge interfaces ","THALES ","[Ericsson] asks for clarification and suggests to add EN\n[Thales] provides clarifications\n[Thales] whether EN address the concern\n[Ericsson] comments\n[Thales] provides EN in r1\n[Ericsson] fine with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211566 ","Conclusion for the key issue#6 ","ZTE Corporation ","[Ericsson] asks for clarification\n[ZTE] provides clarification\n[Ericsson] provides r1\n[ZTE] ok with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211568 ","Evaluation of solution #13 ","ZTE Corporation ","[Huawei] proposes to use this doc for evaluation part and proposes to move the conclusion part in 566","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211782 ","Proposed evaluation for solution #24 and partial conclusion for key issue #6 ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Ericsson] comments\n[Huawei] requires update\n[QC] agree to include EN and to provide r1\n[Ericsson] EN is fine","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211897 ","EC: Conclusion for Key issue #7 ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Ericsson] proposes to use 2042 as conclusion\n[Huawei] how to protect the data if N6 is selected for the data exposure\n[Ericsson] postpone\n[Huawei] ok to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212042 ","Conclusions for KI#7 \"Security of Network Information Provisioning to Local Applications with low latency procedure\" ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] noted","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211898 ","EC: Conclusion for Key issue #10 ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Ericsson] proposes to use 2041 as conclusion\n[Xioami] prefers 2041 as conclusion as Xiaomi does not agree with sol #25 as in 1898\n[Huawei] provides clarification and proposes to send LS to SA2\n[Xioami] fine with sending LS to SA2\n[Huawei] asks Ericsson's view on sending LS\n[Huawei] provide drafted LS in r1\n[Xiaomi] provides r2\n[Ericsson] Comments\n[Huawei] comments\n[Ericsson] no need to send LS\n[Huawei] comments\n[Ericsson] proposes to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212041 ","Conclusions for KI#10 \"Authorization during Edge Data Network change\" ","Ericsson ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212112 ","eEDGE: Additional Threat and Requirement for KI #10 ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211707 ","MEC-New key issue on EEC ID privacy protection ","Apple ","[Huawei] asks for clarification\n[Ericsson] threat is not clear and no need of new KI\n[Apple] provides clarification\n[Ericsson] comments\n[Apple] ok to submit requirement and solution in next meeting","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211501 ","Changes to TR 33.839 ","InterDigital, Inc. ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211567 ","Editorial correction in the references clause ","ZTE Corporation ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211363 ","Reply LS on IP address to GPSI translation ","S2-2009339 ",null,"LS in ","  ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211365 ","Reply LS on IP address to GPSI translation ","S2-2101307 ",null,"LS in ","  ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212009 ","eEDGE: Add Editor’s Notes and Additional Evaluation to Solution #5 ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212010 ","eEDGE: Add Editor’s Notes and Additional Evaluation to Solution #6 ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212011 ","eEDGE: Add Editor’s Notes and Additional Evaluation to Solution #7 ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212012 ","eEDGE: Conclusion for Key Issue #4 ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212026 ","eEDGE: Add Editor’s Notes and Additional Evaluation to Solution #6 ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212027 ","eEDGE: Add Editor’s Notes and Additional Evaluation to Solution #7 ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212028 ","eEDGE: Conclusion for Key Issue #4 ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
[5.9,"Study on Security Aspects of Enhancement for Proximity Based Services in 5GS ","S3‑211401 ","LS on Layer-3 UE-to-Network Relay authentication and authorization ","S2-2101623 ","[Chairs] proposes to postpone\n>>CC_1<<\n[CATT] needs more discussion, ask whether this can be discussed in this week or next week.\n>>CC_1<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","Postpone","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211664 ","Discussion on security of 5G-TMSI-RNTI used for paging and UE ID in adaptation layer in 5G Prose ","Huawei, HiSilicon ",null,"discussion ","Endorsement ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211432 ","LS on R17 Layer-2 SL Relay of UE ID exposure in paging mechanism ","R2-2104654 ",">>CC_1<<\n[CATT] proposes to move into AI#5.9\n[Oppo] proposes to discuss reply proposal together in AI#5.9. The 1743 contribution will also be moved to AI#5.9.\n>>CC_1<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211743 ","LS reply on R17 Layer-2 SL Relay of UE ID exposure in paging mechanism ","OPPO ",">>CC_1<<\n[Oppo] proposes to move AI#5.9 to discuss together\n>>CC_1<<\n[Ericsson] does not agree with the proposed reply\n[Huawei] agrees with Ericsson and proposes to use Huawei's as baseline for reply\n[Oppo] clarifies\n[Huawei] comments\n[QC] comments\n>>CC_4<<\n\n>>CC_4<<","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211665 ","Draft rely LS on R17 Layer-2 SL Relay ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Ericsson] comments with detailed proposal\n[Oppo] comments with concerns\n[Huawei] agrees with Ericsson\n[Interdigital] proposes to add state about different opinion in SA3\n[QC] supports Ericsson's suggestion\n[Apple] agrees with Huawei and Ericsson's proposal\n[Oppo] replies to Apple, Huawei and QC\n[Huawei] provides r1 to capture the rough supported sentence\n[CATT] agrees with Huawei and Ericsson's suggestion\n>>CC_3<<\n{huawei] propose to discuss in Prose session\n[Oppo] not convinced, but may be compromised. needs more time to check\n[Interdigital] shares similar view with Oppo\n[Oppo] the key point is whether exposing is security issue or not.\n[Huawei] we needs to trust relay in some level as UE is out of coverage. If we have no trust, then nothing can be discussed\n[Ericsson] concerning on overdoing security\n[Interdigital] how level trust we need? trust should be related to context. we don't trust serving network, so even less trust to others.\n[QC] \n[Docomo] whether relay UE is allowed to know the temporary idetifier? is that discussion\n[Huawei] clarifies the issue that whether Relay UE could know the paging and response from UE about its temporary identity.\n[Docomo] with Huawei's clarification, don't see any privacy issue.\n[Orange] needs to study : is it no privacy issue? or it has privacy issue but can be accepted, or could not accpeted.\n[Interdigital] clarifies and want to show other WG that different opinion in SA3\n[Apple] \n[Futurewei] Remote UE needs to track UE and it should be considered as issue about user consent\n[Huawei] could add sentence in draft to address Interdigital and Orange concern.\n[CATT] SA3 should make decision\n>>CC_3<<\n[Huawei] provides r2 to address Orange's comment\n[Interdigital] provides r3 to change a little\n[Huawei] could not accept r2, proposes to use r1\n[Interdigital] comments\n[Oppo] points out Huawei's comment on r3 rather than r2, and provides comment, and doesn't agree with r2\n[Interdigital] provides proposals\n[Huawei] provides proposals\n[Huawei] replies to Oppo\n[Oppo] proposes to use r3\n[Huawei] provides proposals\n[Oppo] could live with r1 but not r2\n[Huawei] is ok with Oppo's proposal and asks for Intedigital opinion.\n[Interdigital] does not agree and comments\n[Huawei] proposes to use r2 as baseline for further revision and asks for confirmation\n[Interdigital] provides r4 based on conf call discussion\n[Huawei] is fine with r4\n[Oppo] is fine with r4\n[Apple] is generally fine with r4 and proposes minor changes\n[Huawei] replies that could not catch Apple's point and asks for living with r4\n[Apple] insists proposal\n[Huawei] replies\n[CATT] is fine with r4\n[QC] supports r4\n[Ericsson] is ok with r4\n[Apple] lives with r4","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Revised","No ","S3-212204","  "]
[null,null,"S3-212204","Draft rely LS on R17 Layer-2 SL Relay ","Huawei, HiSilicon ",null,"LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ",null,"S3-211665"]
["  ","  ","S3‑211358 ","New KI: Secure Direct Discovery codes and filters renewal for the out-of-coverage scenario ","MITRE Corporation ","[KPN]  comments\n[CATT] comments\n[QC] comments\n[MITRE] provides r1\n[Philips] provides comment\n[KPN] is fine with r1\n[MITRE] provides r4\n[QC] raises question\n[MITRE] clarifies\n[Interdigital] support MITRE\n[KPN] agrees with Interdigital and MITRE and fine with r4\n[CATT] is ok with r4\n[QC] proposes to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211526 ","Remove editor's notes in key issue 1 ","LG Electronics Inc. ","[QC] proposes to note\n[LGE] clarifies\n[CATT] comments\n[LGE] clarifies\n[CATT] clarifies its comment\n[KPN] comments\n[LGE] replies to KPN and CATT\n[KPN] has further comments\n[LGE] clarifies\n[KPN] provides further comments\n[LGE] clarifies further and asks for concrete proposal\n[KPN] comments\n[LGE] clarifies\n[KPN] comments and proposes way forward\n[LGE] replies and proposes another way forward\n[KPN] comments\n[LGE] clarifies\n[LGE] asks for confirmation\n[KPN] clarifies and fine with r1\n[LGE] does not provides r1, try to guess KPN mentions original one\n[KPN] is ok with original one","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211803 ","New Key Issue on security policy handling for 5G Prose services ","Qualcomm Incorporated, Huawei, Hisilicon, Ericsson ","[CATT] comments\n[Xiaomi] comments\n[CATT] repeat the comment and proposes to merge with 1998\n[Xiaomi] provides r1, try to merge 1803 and 1998\n[Huawei] comments (1998 thread)\n[Xiaomi] clarifies(1998 thread)\n[Huawei] has further comments and proposes not to merge if concerns could not addressed (1998 thread)\n[Xiaomi] provides r2(1998 thread)\n[QC] agree with Huawei and provides r3(1998 thread)\n[XIaomi] is fine with r3(1998 thread)\n[CATT] is ok with r3(1998 thread)","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211803-r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211997 ","ProSe: Resolving an Editor’s Note in KI #1 ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211998 ","ProSe: New Key Issue on Security Policies for PC5 Connection ","Xiaomi Technology ","[QC] thinks it is similar to 1803, and provides comments\n[CATT] comments\n[Xiaomi] clarifies\n[CATT] is not fine with Xiaomi's clarification\n[Xiaomi] asks for concrete proposal \n[CATT] proposes to remove requirement\n[Huawei] proposes to have offline discussion to promote\n[Xiaomi] supports Huawei's proposal to have offline CC\n[CATT] proposes to merge with 1803\n[CATT] proposes to use 1803 as merger and Xiaomi holds the pen\n[Xiaomi] is fine to hold the pen and provide revision\n","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","draft_S3-211803-r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211999 ","ProSe: New Key Issue on UP Security Policy Handling for Indirect Network Communication ","Xiaomi Technology ","[QC] does not agree this is a new KI\n[Xiaomi] clarifies and provides r1\n[QC] proposes to note\n[Xiaomi] clarifies","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211443 ","pCR to 33.847: editorial correction to solution #11 ","THALES ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211463 ","Updated Solution #22: Representation of identities during broadcast ","KPN N.V. ","[Interdigital] proposes to revise\n[KPN] clarifies and provides way forward\n[Interdigital] repeat the proposal\n[QC] comments\n[KPN] provides r1\n[QC] does not agree still\n[Interdigital] provides r2 \n[KPN] is fine with r2\n[Philips] proposes to add a sentence or EN\n[KPN] asks for more clarification about Philips comment\n[QC] comments and proposes to remove evaluation part\n[KPN] provides r3 without evaluation\n[Philips] agrees with r3","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211463-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211484 ","TR 33.847 sol#10 update ","InterDigital, Europe, Ltd. ","[QC] does not agree the EN is addressed\n[Interdigital] provides r1\n[QC] considers the EN is not addressed\n[Interdigital] provides r2\n[QC] clarifies about its comment\n[Interdigital] asking a way forward\n[Interdigital] provides r3 and asks for confirmation\n[QC] is fine with r3","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211484-r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211485 ","TR 33.847 sol#24 evaluation ","InterDigital, Europe, Ltd. ","[QC] proposes to change the evaluation text\n[Huawei] proposes to add ENs and comments that evaluation is only the summary of the solution\n[Interdigital] provides r1\n[Philips] comments\n[Huawei] is fine with r1\n[QC] objects\n[Interdigital] clarifies and provides r2 to address Philips' concern\n[Philips] is fine with r2\n[Interdigital] provides r3 to including evaluation text agreed in 1806\n[QC] is fine with r3\n[Huawei] is fine with r3","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211485-r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211486 ","TR 33.847 sol#25 evaluation ","InterDigital, Europe, Ltd. ","[QC] propoes to update and add EN\n[Huawei] proposes to add EN\n[Interdigital] provides r1\n[Huawei] is fine with r1\n[QC] is fine with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211486-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211524 ","Updates in Solution 4 ","LG Electronics Inc. ","[CATT] comments to suggest use model B as the baseline to do the figure revision\n[LGE] provides r1\n[CATT] comments the figure is not correct\n[LGE] clarifies\n[CATT] replies\n[LGE] provides r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211524-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211525 ","Evaluation of Solution 13 ","LG Electronics Inc. ","[QC] propoes to note\n[LGE] proposes to make discision based on the discussion about 1801 and 1963, and clarifies editorials are involved so should not be noted\n[QC] is fine with editorial but object to delete the EN\n[LGE] provides r1\n[QC] is fine with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211525-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211569 ","New solution for Key issue#4 ","ZTE Corporation ","[Philips] proposes to add EN\n[ZTE] provides r1 to add EN\n[Philips] is fine with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211569-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211591 ","Remark_in_solution_4 ","Philips International B.V. ","[LGE] raises questions\n[Xiaomi] comments\n[Philips] clarifies\n[LGE] has further comments and suggests to add EN instead of NOTE\n[Philips] replies\n[LGE] makes more comments\n[Philips] replies\n[LGE] comments and proposes to add EN\n[QC] proposes a NOTE\n[LGE] disagrees with QC's proposal and clarifies\n[Philips] replies to Xiaomi\n[Philips] provides r1\n[LGE] proposes to add more text in NOTE\n[LGE} comments the multiple discover issue is captured in 1526 and same comment should be applied there also.\n[Philips] replies with concrete proposal\n[LGE] proposes to provide r2 to include Philips's proposal \n[Philips] provides r2\n[LGE] is fine with r2\n[QC] is ok with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211591-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211597 ","Updated Solution #23: Initial key with validity time ","KPN N.V. ","[Interdigital] proposes to revise\n[KPN] clarifies and will revise\n[Huawei] comments for clarification\n[KPN] clarifies and provides r1\n[Intedigital] comments\n[Huawei] is fine with r1\n[Philips] requests for clarification about step 9\n[KPN] clarifies and provides r2\n[Philips] is ok with r2\n[Huawei] is ok with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211597-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211618 ","New solution for one-to-one communication ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Interdigital] proposes to revise\n[Huawei] clarifies and provides r1\n[LGE] raises questions\n[Huawei] replies\n[LGE] has further comments and editroial corrections\n[Huawei] clarifies and provides r2\n[QC] proposes to note\n[Huawei] replies\n[LGE] proposes to add text in the evaluation and does not fully agree with QC's comment\n[QC] doesn't agree\n[Interdigital] is ok with r1\n[LGE] comments\n[Huawei] clarifies and provides r3\n[LGE] is ok to have EN and proposes to modify slightly\n[Huawei] provides r4\n[LGE] proposes to add text\n[Huawei] provides r5\n[KPN] asks questions whether this solution supposed to replace solution #7\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[Huawei] asks for confirmation\n[KPN] considers the concern has been addressed.","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211619 ","Resolve EN and add evaluation to Solution #27 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[QC] objects, proposes to note EN removing and disagree with evaluation\n[Xiaomi] agrees with QC, comments EN is not addressed\n[Huawei] replies and provides r1\n[Xiaomi] comments\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[xiaomi] provides r2\n[Huawei] is ok with r2\n[Huawei] asks for confirmation from QC","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211620 ","Resolve EN and add evaluation to Solution #28 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[QC] objects, proposes to note EN removing and disagree with evaluation\n[Xiaomi] agrees with QC, comments EN is not addressed\n[Huawei] replies and provides r1\n[Xiaomi] questions on 33.304 and provides comments\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[Xiaomi] provides r2\n[Huawei] is fine with r2\n[Huawei] asks for confirmation from QC","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211621 ","Propose evaluation to Solution #32 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Interdigital] proposes to revise\n[Huawei] clarifies and provides r1 to catch editorial correction\n[Interdigital] is fine with r1\n[Philips] comments on first sentence\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Philips] is ok with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Revised","No ","S3-212188","  "]
[null,null,"S3-212188","Propose evaluation to Solution #32 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ",null,"S3-211621"]
["  ","  ","S3‑211622 ","Address Ens in Solution #33 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211627 ","Solution Evaluation for solution 15 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[QC] proposes to change the evaluation text\n[Huawei] ok to add EN as QC suggested and clarifies for QC's comment\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[QC] proposes minor updates\n[Huawei] provides r3\n[QC] is ok with r3\n[Ericsson] is ok with r3","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Revised","No ","S3-212189","  "]
[null,null,"S3-212189","Solution Evaluation for solution 15 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ",null,"S3-211627"]
["  ","  ","S3‑211798 ","Evaluation of Solution #18 ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Samsung] requests to revise\n[QC] clarifies\n[Huawei] proposes to revise\n[QC] clarifies\n[Huawei]  is generally ok with QC's clarification\n[Interdigital] replies\n[QC] clarifies\n[Interdigital] is general ok with 1-5, but has comment on 6.\n[QC] clarifies\n[QC] provides r1\n[Interdigital] comments\n[Huawei] comments on one sentence and fine with others\n[QC] asks for more clear comment to Huawei\n[Huawei] clarifies its comment and proposes to use normative text instead of NOTE\n[QC] provides r2\n[Huawei] is fine with r2\n[Interdigital] is fine with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211798-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211799 ","Evaluation of Solution #19 ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Samsung] comments to wait until related EN is addressed\n[XIaomi] proposes to add a sentence\n[QC] clarifies\n[Xiaomi] clarifies its comments\n[QC] clarifies\n[Xiaomi] does not convince\n[QC] clarifies\n[Xiaomi] is fine without adding the note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211801 ","Evaluation of Solution #13 ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[LGE] proposes to note\n[QC] clarifies\n[LGE] remains its position\n[QC] clarifies further\n[LGE] provides further comment","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211802 ","EN resolution of Solution #19 ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Interdigital] requests to revise\n[QC] provides r1 as suggested\n[Interdigital] is fine with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211802-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211804 ","EN resolution of Solution #34 ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Samsung] requests to revise\n[QC] clarifies\n[Huawei] proposes to revise\n[QC] clarifies\n[Interdigital] requests for clarification\n[QC] clarifies and asks for EN if Interdigital's concern is not addressed.\n[Huawei] is ok with QC's reply\n[Interdigital] clarifies\n[QC] provides r1\n[Interdigital] is ok with r1\n[Huawei] is fine with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211804-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211806 ","Evaluation of Solution #24 ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Interdigital] proposes to revise\n[QC] clarifies\n[Interdigital] has further comments\n[QC] clarifies further\n[Interdigital] comments\n[QC] gives concrete proposal\n[Intedigital] will revise 1485 as QC suggested\n[QC] would like to announce this is noted when 1485 is agreed\n[Interdigital] asks for announce noted","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211807 ","Add an evaluation for solution #10 ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Interdigital] proposes to revise\n[QC] clarifies\n[Interdigital] has further comments and provides r1\n[QC] clarifies\n[Interdigital] comments\n[QC] provides r2\n[Intedigital] questions for clarification\n[QC] clarifies\n[Interdigital] proposes a way forward\n[QC] provides r3 under Interdigital's way forward\n[Interdigital] is fine with r3","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211807-r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211808 ","Add an evaluation for solution #15 ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Huawei] proposes to update before approval\n[QC] clarifies\n[Huawei] proposes to move discussion into 1627 thread","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Merged","No ","draft_S3-211627-r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211809 ","Update an evaluation for solution #30 ","Qualcomm Incorporated ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211810 ","Update of solution #18 to support privacy protection ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Huawei] comments to revise before approval.\n[Interdigital] proposes to revise\n[QC] clarifies\n[Huawei] proposes to add EN\n[Interdigital] is fine to add EN\n[QC] provides r1\n[Huawei] is not convinced with r1\n[QC] clarifies\n[Interdigital] is fine with r1\n[QC] asks for confirmation from Huawei\n[Huawei] comments","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211811 ","Add an evaluation for solution #32 ","Qualcomm Incorporated ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211824 ","pCR to TR33.847- Update Solution#3 ","CATT ","[Interdigital] proposes to revise\n[Huawei] comments to revise before approval.","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211846 ","pCR to TR33.847- Update Solution#4 ","CATT ","[Interdigital] proposes to revise\n[Huawei] comments to revise before approval.","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211847 ","pCR to TR33.847- Update Solution#29 ","CATT ","[QC] proposes to add EN and ediortial correction\n[CATT] provides r1\n[QC] is ok with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211847-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211848 ","pCR to TR33.847- Update Solution#30 ","CATT ","[QC] proposes to add ENs\n[CATT] provides r1\n[QC] is ok with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211848-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211956 ","Update to solution #6 ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] proposes to update before approval\n[Ericsson] clarifies and propose to revise\n[Ericsson] provides r1\n[Interdigital] proposes to revise\n[Ericsson] provides r2\n[Interdigital] proposes to add EN\n[Ericsson] provides r3\n[Huawei] comments on r3\n[Ericsson] provides r4\n[Huawei] is fine with r4\n[Interdigital] is fine with r4","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211956-r4","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211957 ","Update to solution #21 ","Ericsson ","[QC] proposes to revise\n[Ericsson] provides r1\n[Huawei] comments\n[Ericsson] provides r2\n[Interdigital] is fine with r1\n[Huawei] is not agree on a phrase and fine with others\n[Ericsson] provides r3\n[Huawei] is fine with r3\n[Interdigital] is fine with r3","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211957-r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211958 ","Update to solution #35 ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] proposes to update before approval\n[Ericsson] clarifies\n[Ericsson] provides r1\n[Philips] comments\n[Ericsson] provides r2\n[Huawei] comments\n[Ericsson] provides r3\n[Huawei] proposes to delete a phrase\n[Ericsson] provides r4\n[Huawei] is fine with r4\n[Philips] is fine with r4","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211958-r4","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211960 ","Update to evaluation to solution #1 ","Ericsson ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211961 ","Update to evaluation to solution #15 ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] does not agree\n[Ericsson] clarifies\n[Huawei] proposes to move discussion into 1627 thread\n[Ericsson] is ok to move discussion into 1627 thread","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","draft_S3-211627-r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211962 ","Update to evaluation to solution #10 ","Ericsson ","[QC] proposes to revise\n[Ericsson] clarifies and proposes changes\n[Interdigital] has further comment\n[Ericsson] provides r1\n[Interdigital] does not convinced and propose rewording\n[Ericsson] provides r2\n[Interdigital] is ok with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211962-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211963 ","Update to evaluation to solution #13 ","Ericsson ","[LGE] proposes to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212085 ","Update for solution#1: Optimized Authorization ","Samsung ","[QC] comments\n[Samsung] clarifies\n[QC] does not consider the concern is addressed\n[Samsung] provides r1 to add EN\n[QC] is ok with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-212085-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212114 ","Update to solution #32 ","Philips International B.V. ","[QC] comments for clarifications\n[Huawei] comments for clarification about random number\n[Philips] clarifies and provides r1\n[Huawei] is fine with r1\n[QC] considers some concerns are not addressed\n[Philips] provides r2\n[QC] is ok with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-212114-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211623 ","Add conclusions about UE-to-Network relay ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[QC] comments this contribution should be handled together along with the paper 1850\n[Interdigital] proposes to update","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211663 ","Add conclusion to KI#10 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[CATT] (in 1851] proposes to merge 1851 into 1663.\n[Huawei] provides r1 to merge 1663 and 1851 \n>>CC_3<<\n[Huawei] wants to go to 3rd challenge deadline\n[Vodafone] why to choose this solution\n[Huawei] clarifies and will update rationale.\n[Apple] needs more time. has concern on how to choose AKMA and GBA. and AKMA is optional feature\n[Huawei] it is alread submitted several times and leave AKMA and GBA choice to normative work.\n[Thales] GBA is already used in previous ProSe feature\n[Apple] wants to have offline discussion\n[Orange[ supports Thales comment\n[Apple] is fine to put into challenge deadline and will provide comments if exists\nr2 is under 3rd challenge deadline\n>>CC_3<<\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[CATT] is ok with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Revised","No ","S3-212203","  "]
[null,null,"S3-212203","Add conclusion to KI#10 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ",null,"S3-211663"]
["  ","  ","S3‑211800 ","Conclusion of KI #1 ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Interdigital] proposes to revise\n[Huawei] comments to revise before approval and provides r1\n[QC] replies and doesn't agree with r1\n[Xiaomi] has further comments based on QC's view but share similar view with QC about r1\n[CATT] proposes to merge 1800 and 1849, to use 1800 as baseline(in 1849 thread)\n>>CC_3<<\n[QC] r1 is provided by Huawei but is not acceptable by QC\n[CATT] suggests SA3 can make conclusion step by step so WID could be made. If only complete conclusion made before WID then there is lack of time to have normative work\n[Huawei] as solutoin 3 and 4 is still in progress, so it could not make conclusion step by step. and don't need to worry about WID as conclusion can be made in other key issue.\n[Chair] no consensus, should be discussed in email\n>>CC_3<<\n[Interdigital] asks questions for clarification\n[Philips] proposes wording change\n[Interdigital] agrees with Philips' proposal\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[QC] comments\n[Philips] prefers r2 but can live with r0(??)\n[Interdigital] insists on r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211805 ","Conclusion of PC5 security setup for the Layer-3 UE-to-Network relay scenario ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Interdigital] proposes to postpone\n[LGE] shares same view with Interdigital\n[Samsung] propoes to postpone","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211849 ","pCR to TR33.847- Conclusion of KI#1 ","CATT ","[Huawei] comments to revise before approval, discussion should be together with 1800, and provides r1\n[CATT] proposes to merge 1800 and 1849, to use 1800 as the baseline\nTo be merged into 1800(Noted)","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","draft_S3-211800-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211850 ","pCR to TR33.847- Conclusion of KI#3 ","CATT ","[Interdigital] proposes to postpone\n[LGE] shares same view with Interdigital\n[Samsung] propoes to postpone","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211851 ","pCR to TR33.847- Conclusion of KI#10 ","CATT ","[CATT] proposes to merge 1663 and 1851, and proposes to use 1663 as baseline\nTo be merged into 1663","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","draft_S3-211663-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211931 ","pCR to TR33.847- Conclusion of KI#12 ","CATT ","[Huawei] comments to revise, and provides r1\n[KPN] comments with detailed proposals\n>>CC_3<<\n[Huawei] doesn't prefer r2\n[Docomo] needs EN to indicate the conclusion is not complete.\n[Huawei] could discuss offline\n>>CC_3<<\n[KPN] provides r2\n[Huawei] provides r3 to update conclusion","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211959 ","Conclusion on key issue #3 and key issue #4 ","Ericsson ","[Interdigital] proposes to postpone\n[LGE] shares same view with Interdigital\n[Samsung] propoes to postpone","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211964 ","Conclusion on key issue #2 ","Ericsson ","[Ericsson] proposes to postpone","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211483 ","Changes to TR 33.847 ","InterDigital, Inc. ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
[null,null,"S3-212154","TR33.847v0.6.0","CATT","[Interdigital] provides editorial comments\n[CATT] provides r1\n>>CC_8<<\nCATT presents current status and points out the difficulty to finish TS on time as there is only 1 conclusion but have 17 key issues. \n>>CC_8<<","draftTR","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-212154-r1 approved"]
["  ","  ","S3‑211592 ","Updated Solution #23: Initial key with validity time ","TNO ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","S3‑211185 "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212013 ","ProSe: Resolving an Editor’s Note in KI #1 ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212014 ","ProSe: New Key Issue on Security Policies for PC5 Connection ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212015 ","ProSe: New Key Issue on UP Security Policy Handling for Indirect Network Communication ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212029 ","ProSe: Resolving an Editor’s Note in KI #1 ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212030 ","ProSe: New Key Issue on Security Policies for PC5 Connection ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212031 ","ProSe: New Key Issue on UP Security Policy Handling for Indirect Network Communication ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["5.10","Study on security for enhanced support of Industrial IoT ","S3‑211447 ","Presentation of Report TR 33.851 ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",">>CC_1<<\n[China Mobile] is fine in general with question whether this would be impact by the revision of 1448.\n[Nokia] clarifies there is no impact.\n[China Mobile] is fine with clarification\n>>CC_1<<","pCR ","Presentation ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211448 ","Conclusion on UE-UE ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",">>CC_1<<\n[Huawei] is fine in general, proposes to remove last sentence.\n[Nokia] is fine with clarification that would like to show the reason about no further nomative work, and will provide revision.\n>>CC_1<<\n[Nokia] provides r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211449 ","Update of solution applicability to KI ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",">>CC_1<<\n[Huawei] support this change.\nPropose to approval (1st challenge)\n>>CC_1<<","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211450 ","Update of mapping table related to documented solution in Annex ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",">>CC_1<<\npropose to approval (1st challenge)\n>>CC_1<<","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211451 ","Update to asymmetric delay attacks annex ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell, ",">>CC_1<<\npropose to approval (1st challenge)\n>>CC_1<<","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
[5.1100000000000003,"Study on Security Aspects of Enhancements for 5G Multicast-Broadcast Services ","S3‑211403 ","Reply LS on 5MBS progress and issues to address ","S2-2102077 ","[Chair] proposes to withdrawn (not for SA3)\n>>CC_1<<\nPropose to withdrawn(1st deadline)\n>>CC_1<<","LS in ","  ","Yes","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211880 ","Add conclusion for key issue #1 ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",">>CC_1<<\n[Qualcomm] comments why to use EAP-based authentication\n[Huawei] explains motivation\n[Qualcomm] doesn't agree\n>>CC_1<<\n[Nokia]: supports the contribution\n[Huawei]:need clarification on Nokia's comment on “to have EAP based solution to be optional”\n[Qualcomm]: don’t agree with the conclusion in the current form\n[Huawei]: provides clarification\n[Nokia] clarifies that, like to have solution#6 as well as another optional method to be supported\n[Huawei]: sol#6 does not fulfill the requirement of key issue #1\n[Qualcomm] provides further comments\n[Huawei] suggest modification to the conclusion\n[Ericsson] agrees with Qualcomm and propose it to be noted.\n[Huawei] asks specific reason for noting\n[Ericsson] provides reasons and indicates not sure if we need this\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Ericsson] propose to note this document for this meeting\n[Nokia] fine with proposal from Huawei\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Qualcomm] don’t agree with this conclusion.\n[Ericsson] is in same line with Qualcomm \n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Qualcomm] don’t agree with this conclusion.\n[Ericsson] we get back to this in the August meeting","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211631 ","Discussion paper on MBS traffic protection ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",">>CC_1<<\n[Qualcomm] proposes to keep open\n[Huawei] proposes way forward, to divided into several subtopics and get consensus one by one.\n>>CC_1<<","discussion ","Endorsement ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211633 ","Conclusion for key issue 2 ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",">>CC_1<<\n[Qualcomm] challenges the conclusion and need to evaluate solution first.\n>>CC_1<<\n[Ericsson] Clarification required. If not clarified, please note it.\n[Qualcomm] has a similar view to Ericsson\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Philips] provides comments\n[Huawei] propose to note this contribution for this meeting\n[]","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211723 ","MBS conclusions ","Ericsson ","[Nokia]: Clarification required. If not clarified, please note it.  \n[Ericsson] provides clarification\n[Nokia] conclusion document of  key issue#2 to be  noted","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211634 ","Conclusion for key issue 3 ","Huawei, Hisilicon,China Broadcasting Network ","[Qualcomm] propose to note this document, unless clarification is made.\n[Ericsson] agrees with Qualcomm and propose it to be noted.","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211635 ","Update to the overview ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211714 ","MBS-New solution on Key distribution ","Apple ",">>CC_1<<\n[Qualcomm] has questions on the solutoin. Why to have this key? How to negothiate algorithm?\n[Qualcomm] how the AUSF knows the KNGI?\n[Apple] clarifies and propoes to revise\n[Huawei] raises the similar question as Qualcomm\n>>CC_1<<\n[Nokia]: Clarification needed\n[Nokia]: Proposal is to note unless clarified \n[Apple]: Propose to revise the contribution\n[Nokia]: fine to have EN and correction of the downlink message name\n[Qualcomm] want to add 2 ENs\n[Apple] provides r1\n[Qualcomm] needs clarification on key used to encrypt K_MBS and KID\n[Apple] suggest ENs to address Qualcomm concern\n[Qualcomm] find with the ENs (propose minor changes)\n[Apple] provides r2\n[Qualcomm] fine with r2\n[Nokia] fine with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211590 ","Update_in_solution_9 ","Philips International B.V. ",">>CC_1<<\n[Qualcomm] doesn’t understand how the message securely ilivers to the UE., asks whether can fit for 10,000 UEs\n[Philips] clarifies. And replies that 10,000 can be achieved in some cases.\n>>CC_1<<\n[Huawei] clarification is needed\n[Qualcomm] propose to add ENs on key update procedure\n[Philips] asks details on the comments\n[Qualcomm] provides details on the comments\n[Philips] provides r1\n[Huawei] provides comments\n[Philips] provides r2\n[Qualcomm] propose to revert the changes in the evaluation section \n[Huawei] propose updates\n[Philips] provides r3 & r4\n[Qualcomm] propose upates\n[Philips] provides r5\n[Qualcomm okay with r6.","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r6","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211632 ","Update to the solution 11 ","Huawei, Hisilicon,China Broadcasting Network ",">>CC_1<<\n[Phillips] comments that needs to indicates the overhead to UEs\n[Huawei] is ok to update\n[Qualcomm] question on step 2 and MBSF-C. proposes to clarify in contribution\n[Huawei] clarifies and will revise to clarify\n[Apple] comments the how UDM change subscription, the 2nd part of evaluation is description rather than evluation\n[Huawei] clarifies, e.g. AF send message to UDM, etc., and will update evaluation part\n[Apple] would like to have furthere discussion in mailing list, like the motivation about indirect connection between AF and MBSF-C\n>>CC_1<<\n\n[Huawei]: provides r1\n[Philips]: provides feedback \n[Qualcomm] don’t think removal of the EN in the evaluation\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Qualcomm] provides comments\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Qualcomm] proposed text is fine with me. Suggest to keep the EN\n[Huawei] provides r3\n[Qualcomm] okay with r3","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211812 ","EN resolution of Solution #12 ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Nokia]: Clarification needed\n[Nokia]: Proposal is to note unless clarified \n[Huawei]: clarification is needed \n[Qualcomm] provides clarification\n[Nokia] fine with proposal of EN\n[Huawei] suggest to address the EN in this meeting and add evaluation if possible.\n[Ericsson] not sure WID is need\n[Huawei] WID is needed to align with SA2 and RAN group’s work item on MBS for R17\n[Ericsson] prefers to leave MBS security to application\n[Huawei] comments\n[Qualcomm] provides r1\n","pCR ","  ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211877 ","Updates to solutoin #3 ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Qualcomm] propose to add an EN \n[Huawei] need details on what is missing in the evaluation\n[Qualcomm] solution requires more evaluation\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Qualcomm] propose to add an EN: Further evaluation is FFS\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Qualcomm] okay with r2.\n","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211878 ","Updates to solutoin #4 ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211879 ","Updates to solutoin #5 ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211932 ","Editor Note removal for Solution#10 ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai-Bell ","[Philips]: clarifications required\n[Huawei]: request clarifications\n[Nokia] provides clarification","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212096 ","Updates to solution#13 on Key refresh mechanism ","Samsung ","[Philips]: clarifications required\n[Samsung] provides clarification","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212097 ","Updates to solution#13 on support for multiple MB-SMF ","Samsung ","[Qualcomm] asks question for clarification and suggest editor's notes\n[Samsung] provides clarification\n[Samsung] provides r1\n[Qualcomm] Okay with r1\n","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212098 ","Updates to solution#13 on MBS security algorithm selection ","Samsung ","[Qualcomm] asks question for clarification and suggest editor's notes\n[Samsung] provides clarification\n[Samsung] provides r1\n[Qualcomm] Okay with r1\n","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211813 ","Evaluation of Solution #2 ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Huawei] Modification is needed\n[Qualcomm] provides r1\n[Huawei] R1 looks fine ","pCR ","  ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211814 ","Evaluation of Solution #11 ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Huawei]: proposed to merge S3-211632 and S3-211814 and use S3-211632 as baseline?\n[Qualcomm] Until the comments are addressed, I suggest to keep this separate.\n[Qualcomm] merged into S3-211632","pCR ","  ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211933 ","Evaluation for Solution#10 ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai-Bell ","[Huawei] proposes to note it for this meeting\n[Nokia] provides clarification to lift the objection\n[Ericsson] Clarification required. If not clarified, please note this document\n[Nokia] Theoretically might be this attack scenario is possible. \n[Ericsson] Is it ok if we postpone this document to August meeting ?\n[Nokia] It is fine to note this document for this meeting\n","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
[5.12,"Study on enhanced security support for Non-Public Networks ","S3‑211390 ","LS on support of PWS over SNPN ","S1-210368 ","[Chair] proposes to note\n>>CC_1<<\n[Ericsson] proposes to note\nPropose to note (1st challenge)\n>>CC_1<<\n[NTT DOCOMO]: Re-opened for discussion, suggests to send reply LS\n[Ericsson] no need of reply LS\n[NTT DOCOMO] provides clarification and asks for other companies views\n>>CC_4<<\nrevert from Noted to open for discussion\n[Docomo] proposes to postpone, Like to know other companies opnion\n[Ericsson] can be postponed\n[Apple] wants to discuss in this meeting\n[Orange] makes decision in next meeting\nIt is postponed.\n>>CC_4<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","postponed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211414 ","Reply LS on support of PWS over SNPN ","S2-2102963 ","[Chair] proposes to note\n>>CC_1<<\n[Ericsson] proposes to note\nPropose to note (1st challenge)\n>>CC_1<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211428 ","Reply LS on support of PWS over SNPN ","R2-2104640 ","[Chair] proposes to note\n>>CC_1<<\n[Ericsson] proposes to note\nPropose to note (1st challenge)\n>>CC_1<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211394 ","LS on UE capabilities indication in UPU ","S2-2101072 ","to be replied to in 1744/1856?\n[Nokia]: prefers 1856\nCC_1>>\nDiscussion to continue in S3-211856; \nS3-211744 is merged with S3-211856\n<<CC_1","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","postponed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211441 ","Reply LS on UE capabilities indication in UPU ","C1-212599 ","to be replied to in 1744/1856?\n[Nokia]: prefers 1856\nCC_1>>\nDiscussion to continue in S3-211856; \nS3-211744 is merged with S3-211856\n<<CC_1","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","postponed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211741 ","Discussion capability negotiation for the parameters contained in UPU ","Ericsson Japan K.K. ",null,"discussion ","Discussion ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211744 ","draft LS reply: UE capabilities indication in UPU ","Ericsson Japan K.K. ",">>CC_1<<\nis merged into 1856\n>>CC_1<<","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211815 ","Discussion on SA2 LS on UE capabilities indication in UPU ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Ericsson] Note and continue discussion in the thread for the LS (S3-211856)","other ","Endorsement ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211856 ","reply LS on UE capabilities indication in UPU ","Huawei, Hisilicon ",">>CC_1<<\nbe merged with 1744\n>>CC_1<<\n[Nokia] comments \n[Ericsson] comments for update\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[QC] objects to the content in LS\n[Huawei] clarifies to QC comments\n[Ericsson] provides further comments\n[THALES] Disgrees with the LS content\n[QC] Agrees with THALES and objects to the LS content\n[Huawei] asks clarification on Ericssons comment and provides clarification\n[Ericsson] Disagrees and provides further comments\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Ericsson] Provides further comments\n>>CC_4<<\n[Huawei] request to continue the discussion\n[Orange] request to confirm to treat it next week\n[Chair] the deadline extends to next week\n>>CC_4<<\n[Huawei] asks for clarification, suggests to discuss it together under S3-211440","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211860 ","Discussion on UE capabilities indication in UPU ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Ericsson] Requests for clarification\n[Huawei] Provides the clarification\n[QC] proposes to note","discussion ","Endorsement ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211395 ","LS on updating the Credentials Holder controlled lists for SNPN selection ","S2-2101077 ","to be replied to in 2003?","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","replied to","No ","2003-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211439 ","Reply LS on updating the Credentials Holder controlled lists for SNPN selection ","C1-212419 ","to be replied to in 2003?","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","replied to","No ","2003-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212002 ","eNPN: New KI of Security Protection for the Update of Preferred SNPN List ","Xiaomi Technology ","[Ericsson] Proposes to note (LS can be sent without KI and conclusion)\n[Xiaomi] OK to note it","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212003 ","Reply LS on updating the Credentials Holder controlled lists for SNPN selection ","Xiaomi Technology ","[QC] asks for clarificationa nd revision\n>>CC_4<<\n[Xiaomi] r1 available\n[Qualcomm] need more time\n>>CC_4<<\n[QC] fine with r1, but suggests some re-wording\n[Xiaomi] provides r2\n[QC] fine with r2\n","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211521 ","Further conclusions for KI #1 ","CableLabs ","[HPE] is generally ok but requests for update\n>>CC_2<<\n[QC] comments\n>>CC_2<<\n[CableLabs] Provides r1\n[HPE] fine with r1\n[QC] prposes to update before approval\n[Nokia] Suggests more updates to r1\n[HPE] fine, suggest to fix typo\n[CableLabs] provides r2 and r3\n[Nokia] fine with r3\n[QC] fine with r3 suggests to fix type in final version\n[Ericsson] not fine with r3, needs more time to analyze the security properties of the solution\n[CableLabs] provides clarification to Ericsson and requests to agree r3\n[Ericsson] provides further comments\n[CableLabs] provides clarification","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211652 ","Solution Update for Solution #5 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[QC] proposes to update\n[Huawei] Asks QC to provide suggestion to update the evaluation\n[QC] comments further\n[Huawei] removes evaluation and provides r1\n[QC] fine with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211725 ","Analysis of security properties of architectural options ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Huawei] disagrees\n[Nokia] clarifies\n[HPE] disagrees\n[Nokia] suggests changes to have a way forward\n[QC] proposes to note\n[Ericsson] proposes to note\n[Nokia] provides clarification","pCR ","Endorsement ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211734 ","LS on Feedback on Key Issue #1 \"Enhancements to Support SNPN along with credentials owned by an entity separate from the SNPN\" ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Huawei] proposes to update before approval\n[Nokia] clarifies\n[HPE] proposes to update before approval\n[QC] proposes to update\n[Ericsson] proposes to update\n[Nokia] provides r1\n[HPE] proposes to note\n[Huawei] agrees with HPE comments\n[Ericsson] not fine with r1\n[QC] agrees with Nokia, suggest updates for way forward\n>>CC_4<<\n[Ericsson] still under discussion and like to continute the discussion this week\n>>CC_4<<\n[Nokia] asks time to re-assess and conclude\n[HPE] suggests some changes to LS content","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211767 ","Conclusions for KI#1 (external entity) on SUPI privacy and usage of MSK ","Ericsson, Huawei, Interdigital, Lenovo, Motorola Mobility, Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell, Qualcomm Incorporated ",">>CC_2<<\n[CableLabs] request to merge with 1521, and to bind together for approval/noted\n[Ericsson] comments 1521 may receive more comments so doesn't agree to merge\n[QC] shares same view with Ericsson\n[CableLabs] proposes to note this one\nIt was decided not to merge\n>>CC_2<<\n>>CC_4<<\n[Cablelabs] concern on MSK from third party\n[Ericsson] using DH is having backward compatibility issues\n[Cablelabs] it is rel-17 feature and might have backward compatibility issues\n>>CC_4<<\n[CableLabs] provides r1\n[CableLabs] doesnot agree with r1, provides further comments","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211768 ","Conclusions for KI#1 (external entity) on AAA interworking ","Ericsson, China Mobile, Huawei, InterDigital, Qualcomm Incorporated ","[HPE] objects\n[Nokia] comments\n[Ericsson] clarifies\n[Lenovo] shows lack interest to have an IWF but can live with possibility\n>>CC_2<<\n[Nokia] proposes to leave this issue to SA2\n[CableLabs] doesn't agree with the last sentence, comments that that function could not behave same as  AUSF as there is no key derivation function.\n[Lenovo] doesn't prefer intermediate function but could accept as option\n[HPE] shares same view with Nokia\n[CMCC] clarifies the IWF is required by operator to keep separation of AUSF and outer entity\n[QC] prefers not to have this function\n...\n>>CC_2<<\n[HPE] still objects to the text\n[QC] requests to see suggestion under 1734 and agree for text for conclusion","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211816 ","pCR: Additional conclusions for KI #1 ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Huawei] proposes to update and suggests modification\n[QC] asks for clarification from HW\n[Ericsson] asks for clarification and suggests to update\n[QC] Agrees with Ericsson proposal, updates will be made in r1\n[Huawei] asks for clarification from QC\n[QC] provides clarification and r1\n[Huawei] provides futher comments\n[QC] provides clarification\n[Huawei] provides further comments and asks for clarification\n[Qualcomm] provides clarification\n[Huawei] provides their views\n[Qualcomm] provides clarification\n[Ericsson] Proposal to note at this meeting and continue discussion","pCR ","  ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212056 ","pCR: Conclusion for KI #1 on addressing security threat against KAUSF ","CableLabs ","[QC] propose to note\n[CableLabs] provides clarification\n[Ericsson] agrees with QC and proposes to note\n[Ericsson] provides further comments\n[CableLabs] provides clarification\n[Ericsson] provides further comments","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211570 ","New solution on control plane based provisioning PS to AUSF ","ZTE Corporation ","[Huawei] proposes to revise\n[ZTE] provides r1\n[Xiaomi] has general comments and requests for clarification\n[ZTE] provides clarification\n[QC] proposes to note\n[Philips] comments on QC's objection\n[QC] responds to philips and adds further comments\n[Orange] Objects (need to resolve the EN in the key issue before proceeding with inclusion of solutions in the TR.)","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211571 ","New solution on control plane based provisioning PS to UDM ","ZTE Corporation ","[Huawei] proposes to revise\n[ZTE] provides r1\n[Xiaomi] has general comments and requests for clarification\n[ZTE] provides clarification\n[QC] proposes to note\n[Orange] Proposes to Note, shares same view as QC.","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211770 ","Conclusions for KI#2 on secure provisioning of PNI-NPN credentials ","Ericsson ","[QC] proposes to note\n[THALES] proposes to note\n[Orange] Proposes to Note, Conclusion is pre-mature","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212001 ","eNPN: Solution of Security Mechansim for UP Provisioning of Credentials ","Xiaomi Technology ","[QC] proposes to note\n[Xiaomi] asks for clarification over QC comments\n[Huawei] proposes to update\n[Xiaomi] provides r1\n[QC] proposes to note\n[Xiaomi] provides clarification to QC\n[Philips] Agrees with Xiaomi and provides clarifications","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212072 ","A new onboarding solution addressing KI#2 ","Lenovo, Motorola Mobility ","[Ericsson] comments for clarification\n[Lenovo] clarifies\n[QC] proposes to note\n[Lenovo] provides clarification\n[Philips] Comments on QC's objection\n[Orange] Objects to this contribution. As stated in the previous meeting, the KI#2 EN need first to be resolved before including solutions in the TR.","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211573 ","Updates to solution 14: Removal of Editor's notes: Certificate Handling ","Intel K.K. ","[Ericsson] proposes to update\n[Intel] clarifies\n[Ericsson] provides further comments\n[Intel] replies for Ericsson's lastest comment\n[Ericsson] has more comments\n[Intel] provides further clarification\n[Intel] provides r1\n[Ericsson] fine with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211574 ","Updates to solution 14: Removal of Editor’s notes: One-Way ","Intel K.K. ","[Ericsson] proposes to note unless clarified or update\n[Intel] does not catch the concern and asks for clarification\n[Ericsson] provides further comments\n[Huawei] comments for update\n[Intel] provides further clarification\n[Intel] provides r1\n[Ericsson] proposes updates to r1\n[Intel] uploads r2\n[Ericsson] proposes minor updates to r2\n[Intel] povides r3\n[Ericsson] fine with r3\n[Orange] Orange objects this contribution. Reasons are similar as for 1579.\n\n\n","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211578 ","Proposal for conclusion for Key Issue 4 ","Intel K.K. ","[Huawei] proposes to update before approval\n[Intel] clarifies and asks for more clarification\n[Huawei] provides more comments\n[Intel] clarifies further\n[Ericsson] requests to update before approval\n[QC] updates required\n[DT] shares same view as QC\n[THALES] requires update\n[Orange] Objects\n","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211579 ","Updates to solution 14: Removal of Editor’s notes: Three Authentication ","Intel K.K. ","[Huawei] proposes to update before approval\n[Intel] replies that clarification has been already provided in thread of 1573\n[Ericsson] requests to update\n[Intel] do not agree with the rationale\n[QC] proposes to note\n[Intel] provides clarification\n[QC] provides further comments\n[Ericsson] replies to comments\n[Intel] Provides clarification and uploaded a new revision r1\n[Ericsson] asks for updates to r1\n[Intel] provides r2 \n[Ericsson] proposes changes to r2\n[Orange] Orange supports Qualcomm’s position\n[Intel] provides r3\n[Intel] provides clarification to Orange's objection\n[Ericsson] r3 is fine for me. But two companies proposes to note the contribution.\n\n \n\n","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211653 ","Evaluation for Solution #12 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Ericsson] proposes to update\n[Intel] comments for update\n[Huawei] clarifies and agrees to update\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Ericsson] asks for further updates to r1\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Ericsson] fine with r2\n[QC] asks for updates\n[Huawei] provides clarification to QC\n[QC] requires updates\n[Huawei] provides r3\n[QC] fine with r3\n[Ericsson] fine with r3","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211724 ","Solution for privacy protection during initial access ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ericsson] proposes to note\n[Nokia] clarifies that is the agreement from last meeting\n[QC] proposes to note\n[Nokia] asks clarification for the objection\n[QC] asks for clarification\n[Ericsson] replies to Nokia\n[Nokia] provides clarification\n","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211726 ","Proposal for a conclusion on KI#4 ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Huawei] proposes to update before approval\n[Ericsson] requests to update\n[QC] proposes to note\n[Nokia] clarifies\n[QC] provides further comments","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211727 ","Resolution of editor’s note in solution 19 related to bidding down attacks. ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211728 ","Resolution of Editor's Note in Solution 19 related to provisioning of server certificate the the onboarding UE. ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ericsson] requests to update\n[Nokia] provides r2\n[Ericsson] has further comment\n[Nokia] provides clarification and r2 is available \n[Ericsson] fine with r1, asks further questions for clarification\n","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211729 ","Resolution of an Editor's Note in Solution 19 related to security implications of the solution ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211730 ","Resolution of Editor's Note in Solution 19 related to construction of SUCI. ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211731 ","Resolution of Editor's Note in Solution 19 related to UDM involvementUpdate ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211732 ","Evalution and system impact for soluiton 19 ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ericsson] requests for update\n[Nokia] provides r1\n[Ericsson] proposes updates to r1\n[THALES] proposes updates\n[QC] proposes updates\n[Nokia] clarifies and provides r2\n[Ericsson] proposes updates to r2\n[Nokia] provides r3\n[Ericsson] fine with r3\n[QC] fine iwth r3\n[THALES] fine with r3","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211733 ","Update to Solution ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211735 ","LS on architectural clarifications related to onboarding without client authentication ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ericsson] proposes to note unless clarified.\n[Nokia] provides clarification\n[QC] proposes to note\n[Nokia] asks for clarification on objection\n[QC] asks further clarification\n[Ericsson] provides further comments\n>>CC_4<<\n[Ericsson] to keep it open, to be handled in this week\n>>CC_4<<\n[Nokia] Provides comments\n[Nokia] provides further clarification\n[Ericsson] provides further comments\n[Nokia] provides further clarification\n[Ericsson] provides further comments\n[Nokia] provides clarification\n[QC] provides clarification\n[Ericsson] provides further comments","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211769 ","Conclusions for KI#4 (initial access) ","Ericsson, Huawei, InterDigital, Lenovo, Motorola Mobility, Qualcomm Incorporated ",">>CC_2<<\n...\n[Huawei] \n>>CC_2<<\n[Intel] do not agree with the conclusion\n[Intel] proposes to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211861 ","Conclusion on KI#5 ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Ericsson] proposes to merge with 2000\n[Huawei] fine with merger\n[Ericsson] fine with r1\n[Huawei] 1861 is merged with 2000, add HW as co-signer\n[Xiaomi] provides r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212000 ","eNPN: Conclusion on KI#8 with Solution#18 Updating ","Xiaomi Technology ","[Ericsson] proposes to update\n[Xiaomi] provides r1 (1861 merged with 2000?)","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211467 ","Changes to TR 33.857 ","InterDigital, Inc. ","[Ericsson] proposes updates","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
[null,null,"S3-212220","TR 33.857 0.6.0","Ericsson",null,"draftTR","Approval ","Yes","Yes","approved","No ","r1"]
["  ","  ","S3‑211577 ","Proposal for conclusion for Key Issue 4 ","Intel K.K. ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","reserved ","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212016 ","eNPN: Conclusion on KI#8 with Solution#18 Updating ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212017 ","eNPN: Solution of Security Mechansim for UP Provisioning of Credentials ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212018 ","eNPN: New KI of Security Protection for the Update of Preferred SNPN List ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212019 ","Reply LS on updating the Credentials Holder controlled lists for SNPN selection ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"LS out ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212032 ","eNPN: Conclusion on KI#8 with Solution#18 Updating ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212033 ","eNPN: Solution of Security Mechansim for UP Provisioning of Credentials ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212034 ","eNPN: New KI of Security Protection for the Update of Preferred SNPN List ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212035 ","Reply LS on updating the Credentials Holder controlled lists for SNPN selection ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"LS out ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212054 ","pCR: Conclusion for KI #1 on addressing security threat against KAUSF ","CableLabs ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
[5.13,"Study on security aspects of the Disaggregated gNB Architecture ","  ","  ","  ",null,"  ","  ","  ","  ","  ","  ","  ","  "]
[5.14,"Study on User Consent for 3GPP services ","S3‑211656 ","Add Security Requirement for Key Issue #3 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ",">>CC_2<<\n[Verizon]: is it related to personal data or user consent data, so clarification is needed\n[Huawei] fine to revise it\n[Apple] prefer to discuss it separately. Need clarification on deletion aspects\n[Nokia] deletion and privacy why to relate it\n[Verizon] as part regulation, to compile, with we need to have requirement on deletion\n[Apple] What is \"personal data\" to be defined.\n[Docomo] not to use \"Personal data\" instead \"data related to user consent\" to be used and also need to update the requirements accordingly.\n[Huawei] can merge the two contributions and discuss further in e-mail\n[Apple] two are different: stop collecting and delete the data. Not to merge them.\n[Nokia] For the previous LS from SA2, SA3 response was very light. But now, can we detailed the scenario to SA2 for their consideration\n[Docomo] last LS was provide with requirements\n[Nokia] Can we provide further details\n[Docmo] two requirements need to be included in the TR\n[Apple] not to merge the requirements, it needs to be separate\n[Huawei] fine to send a LS to SA2\n[Nokia] Like to draft a version and have discussion on the draft LS to SA2\n[Vodafone] wording to be revise to read it properly. Will work with the proposing companies to improve it.\n[Chair] to disc the draft LS in a new TDoC e-mail disc threat\n\nIt decides to initiate LS to SA2, to indicate progress on this topic in SA3, in order to help SA2 for their competing solution choice.\nNokia holds the pen\n>>CC_2<<\n[Docomo] proposes to update\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Nokia] requests for updates\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Apple] requests to update\n[Huawei] provides r3\n[Docomo] is fine with r2\n[Apple] is fine with r3\n[Nokia] is fine with r3","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211656-r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211715 ","UC3S-Requirement on revoking user consent ","Apple ",">>CC_2<<\n[Ericsson] Can revocation and halting be handles within 3GPP using 3GPP specified protocols\n[Apple] no solution plan as of now\n>>CC_2<<\n[Huawei] requests for update\n[Apple] provides r1\n[Apple] provides r2\n[Huawei] is fine with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211715-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211654 ","Solution Update for Solution #2 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Docomo] proposes to update\n[Huawei] replies and will update if consensus is reached\n[Ericsson] comments to make as a new solution\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[Nokia] agrees with Ericsson\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Docomo] proposes to remove the evaluation\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Docomo] is ok with r2\n[Verizon] comments\n[Huawei] replies","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211654-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211852 ","Address ENs for User Consent for Exposure of information to Edge Applications in Real Time ","China Unicom ","[Docomo] proposes to update\n[Ericsson] comments for clarification\n[Docomo] agrees with Ericsson's observation\n[Verizon] comments\n[ChinaUnicom] provides r1\n[Docomo] is ok with r1\n[Verizon] does not convince\n[ChinaUnicom] clarifies and provides r2\n[Nokia] is not convinced with current EN","pCR ","  ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212080 ","Solution on user's consent for exposure of information to Edge Applications ","Samsung ","[Docomo] proposes to update\n[Samsung] clarifies\n[Ericsson] comments\n[Docomo] has further comments\n[Verizon] requests for update\n[Samsung] provides r1\n[Verizon] does not convince\n[Docomo] still not clear\n[Samsung] clarifies and provides r2\n[Samsung] provides r3\n[Verizon] does not consider the concern addressed in r2\n[Docomo] does not consider the solution is well described, but can live with it, r3\n[Samsung] clarifies","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212081 ","Solution on user consent for UE data collection ","Samsung ","[Ericsson] proposes to note\n[Verizon] comments\n[Nokia] replies to Verizon and propose to note 2081.\n[QC] proposes to note\n[Verizon] proposes to note\n[Samsung] is ok to be noted","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212108 ","[UC3S] Update to Conclusion ","Samsung ","[Docomo] objects\n[Samsung] clarifies\n[Docomo] comments for clarification\n[Samsung] clarifies\n[Docomo] disagrees Samsung's conclusion\n[Docomo] clafies its comment\n[Samsung] provides r1\n[Docomo] is fine with r1, and comments on wording issue\n[Samsung] provides r2\n[Docomo] is fine with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-212108-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211655 ","Update on Observations related to Regulations ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Docomo] proposes to update\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Huawei] provides r2 ","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft S3-211655-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212052 ","Intro update ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",null,"pCR ","  ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
[null,null,"S3-212123","LS on user consent revocation to SA2","Nokia","[Chair] it is newly allocated for draft LS to SA2\n>>CC_3<<\n[Nokia] is still drafting. Could say it is requirement related to user consent.\n[Ericsson] something needs done in SA3. NWDAF asks for some kind of user consent. \n\nNokia will send out first version and trigger discussion in email and see whether SA3 could send it out or not. \n>>CC_3<<\n[Nokia] provides discussions\n[Huawei] replies\n[Nokia] provides r0\n[Ericsson] comments\n>>CC_4<<\n[Nokia] under discussion\n[Ericsson] there are issue open in SA3 to discuss\n[NTT DoCoMo] need more time. Request to extent the deadline to next week-2.\n[Orange] need to indicate SA2 that SA3 is studing this topic\n[Nokia] LS is to provide feedback on the list of points agreed in SA2\n[Ericsson] we need to comment on the SA2 conclusions is what we need now\n[Huawei] like to provide our feedback to SA2   \n[Chair] to keep it open for more discussions\n[NTT DoCoMo] request to extend deadline to next week\nIt is extended to next week\n>>CC_4<<\n[Nokia] provides r1\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Ericsson] provides r3\n[Nokia] provides r4\n[Docomo] provides cleanup and rewording, as r5\n[Huawei] provides r7\n[Apple] provides r8 with slightly change\n[Docomo] reverts Apple's first change and provides r9\n[Huawei] provides r10\n[Ericsson] does not see r10, finally find it\n[Nokia] provides r11\n>>CC_8<<\nNokia presents current status\n>>CC_8<<\n[Apple] is ok with r11\n[Docomo] has minor comments and fine with the content\n[Ericsson] needs time to check\n[Ericsson] provides r12\n[Docomo] proposes to revert Ericsson's change on b) and fine with others.\n[Huawei] is fine with r12\n[Ericsson] can live with Docomo's proposal, and provides r13\n[Nokia] provides r14 for clean up and typos\n[Docomo] is ok with r13 and r14\n[Huawei] is fine with r13 and r14","LS out ","Approval ","Yes","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-212123-r14"]
[null,null,"S3-212205","TR 33.867 v0.5.0","Huawei, Hisilicon ",null,"draftTR","Approval ","Yes","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-212205"]
[5.15,"Study on security aspects of the 5GMSG Service ","S3‑211838 ","Add evaluation to solution #4 ","China Mobile ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212086 ","[5gmsg] Transport security protection for MSGin5G-3 interface ","Samsung ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212087 ","[5gmsg] Resolving ENs in solution#1 ","Samsung ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212088 ","[5gmsg] Resolving ENs in solution#5 ","Samsung ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212089 ","[5gmsg] Resolving ENs in solution#6 ","Samsung ","[CMCC]like to have an EN added\n[Samsung] provides r1\n[CMCC] r1 is fine","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212090 ","[5gmsg] Resolving ENs in solution#7 ","Samsung ","[CMCC]like to have an EN added\n[Samsung] provides r1\n[CMCC] r1 is fine","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
[5.16,"Study on security aspects of enablers for Network Automation (eNA) for the 5G system (5GS) Phase 2 ","S3‑211417 ","Reply LS on RAT type for network monitoring ","S2-2103237 ","[Chair] proposes to note\n>>CC_1<<\n[Nokia] has comment and proposes to respond, is willing to hold the pen to draft\n>>CC_1<<\n[Nokia] provides draft reply LS as r1\n[Huawei] is fine with r1\n[QC] requests for clarification\n>>CC_4<<\n[CMCC] under discussion\n>>CC_4<<\n[Nokia] clarifies and provides r2\n[Lenovo] is fine with r2","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","replied to","No ","draft_S3-211417-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211418 ","LS on security aspects for the method of collection of data from the UE ","S2-213263 ","replied in 1823","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","postponed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211823 ","Reply-LS on security aspects for the method of collection of data from the UE ","OPPO ","[Ericsson] proposes to postpone\n[CMCC] comments\n[Oppo] clarifies\n[CMCC] is fine with Oppo's clarification\n[Oppo] replies to Ericsson\n>>CC_4<<\n[OPPO] under discussion, like to disc next week\nit is extended to next week\n>>CC_4<<\n[Ericsson] keeps its position, to postpone this draft LS","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","postponed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211422 ","LS on Transaction Information - Dispersion Analytics ","S2-2103268 ","replied from 1698","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","replied to","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211698 ","Reply LS on Transaction Information - Dispersion Analytics ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ercisson] provides editorial corrections\n[Nokia] provides r1","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211698-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211466 ","Changes to TR 33.866 ","InterDigital, Inc. ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","available ","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212059 ","New KI Untrusted DCCF for secure data collection ","Ericsson ","[Nokia] comments for clarification\n[Huiawei] proposes to note\n[Ericsson] provides clarification to address Nokia's concern\n[Nokia] has further comments\n[Ericsson] replies\n[Lenovo] raises concerns on untrusted AMF\n[Ericsson] replies to Huawei\n[Huawei] does not consider the concerns are addressed\n[Nokia] provides more clarification to repond Ericsson\n[CMCC] comments","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211464 ","Solution on Remote Attestation for 5GS ","Johns Hopkins University APL, US National Security Agency, CISA ECD, InterDigital, Fraunhofer SIT, CableLabs, AT&T, Verizon Wireless, NIST ",">>CC_2<<[\n[Qualcomm] propose to remove UE part in 6.Y.2.6\n[Huawei] Cannot agree the document, not in 3GPP scope\n[Intel] Support this contribution, support Qc to remove UE part\n[Lenovo] Not clear how to bring NWDAF here, may be for SA5 scope\n[JHU] Provides clarification, NWDAF is the relaying party\n[DoCoMo]: need clarification; what is achieved by this procedure\n[JHU] provides clarification that it is for assurance\nFuturewei: can be scope of SCAS?\n[Nokia] how detection is performed\n[Docomo] need to have good knowledge and updated configuration and updates of all platforms, is it feasible?\n[JHU] Agree need more knowledge and challenging\nLenovo: how to measure freshness, Integrity, like so\n[JHU] EN on \"integrity measurement is FFS\" is already captured, needs to be studied further\n[CMCC] need to have more discussions\n>>CC_2<<\n[Huawei] proposes to note\n[Docomo] proposes to note\n[BT] proposes to note\n[CableLabs] proposes to include solution in TR\n[JHU] proposes to add EN to address Huawei's concern\n[Huawei] doesn't agree with JHU's proposal\n[Ericsson] proposes to note\n[JHU] agrees to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211465 ","Discussion on Remote Attestation for 5GS ","Johns Hopkins University APL, US National Security Agency, CISA ECD, InterDigital, Fraunhofer SIT, CableLabs, AT&T, Verizon Wireless, NIST ","[Huawei] proposes to note as discussion paper","discussion ","Discussion ","Yes ","Yes","Nioted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211693 ","Solution on Processing of tampered data ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Huawei] proposes to note unless comments are resolved\n[Nokia] clarifies with detailed proposals\n[Ericsson] shares similar concern\n[Nokia] provides r1\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Nokia] provides r3","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211693-r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211696 ","Solution on Authorization of NF Service Consumers for data access via DCCF ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ericsson] comments for clarification\n[Lenovo] shares same view with Ericsson\n[Nokia] clarifies\n[Huawei] requests for clarification\n[Nokia] provides r1\n[Huawei] comments on step 12 and step 6.\n[Nokia] provides r2\n[Huawei] is fine with r2\n[Ericsson] comments for clarification\n[Nokia] provides r3","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211696-r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211697 ","Solution on Authorization of NF Service Consumers to access data from ADRF via DCCF ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Huawei] comments for clarification\n[Nokia] provides r1\n[Huawei] is fine with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211697-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211854 ","add ENs to solution#5 ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Lenovo] comments for clarification\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[Lenovo] has further comment\n[Huawei] clarifies further\n[Ericsson] does not agree to add EN\n[Lenovo] comments\n[Ericsson] is fine with Lenovo's comment\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[Lenovo] does not agree\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[Lenovo] comments\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[Lenovo] comments","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212057 ","Solution on Authorization of Data Consumers for data access via DCCF ","Ericsson ","[Lenovo] comments for clairification\n[Ericsson] clarifies\n[Lenovo] needs more clarifications\n[Ericsson] proposes to add a step to address Lenovo's concern.\n[Ericsson] provides r1\n[Lenovo] has further comment\n[Huawei] raises another question\n[Nokia] proposes to note unless comments can be clarified\n[Ericsson] provides r3\n[Lenovo] comments\n[Nokia] comments\n[Ericsson] clarifies\n[Lenovo] comments\n[Nokia] comments\n[Ericsson] clarifies\n[Ericsson] provides r4\n[Lenovo] comments\n[Ericsson] provides r5\n[Lenovo] proposes to change EN in step 8a\n[Ericsson] provides r6\n[Lenovo] is fine with r6","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","revised","No ","draft_S3-212057-r6","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212058 ","Solution on Authorization of Data Consumers for data access via DCCF through Messaging Framework ","Ericsson ","[Lenovo] comments for clairification\n[Ericsson] clarifies\n[Lenovo] needs more clarifications\n[Ericsson] proposes to add a step to address Lenovo's concern.\n[Huawei] has same question as 2057\n[Nokia] has same comments as 2058, proposes to note\n[Ericsson] provides r1\n[Lenovo] has similar comment as 2057\n[Nokia] comments\n[Ericsson] asks for comments clarification","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212060 ","Solution for Untrusted DCCF for secure data collection ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] proposes to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211867 ","New solution to key issue #1.5 ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Nokia] has editorial comment\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Nokia] is fine with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","revised","No ","draft_S3-211867-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212055 ","Removal of Editor’s Note of Solution#5 ","Lenovo, Motorola Mobility ","[Huawei] comments for clarification\n[Lenovo] clarifies and raises questions\n[Huawei] has further comments\n[Lenovo] clarifies\n[Huawei] proposes to add sentence\n[Lenovo] provides r1\n[Lenovo] provides r2 based on discussion in 1854\n[Lenovo] provides r3\n[Huawei] provides r4\n[Lenovo] comments","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212118 ","Removal of Editor’s Note of Solution#4 ","Lenovo, Motorola Mobility ","[Nokia] comments for updating\n[Huawei] requests for clarification about NE removal\n[Lenovo] replies to Huawei and Nokia's questions\n[Nokia] requests to update\n[Lenovo] replies\n[Huawei] comments\n[Lenovo] clarifies\n[Lenovo] provides r1\n[Nokia] has further comments and wait for further revision\n[Nokia] requests to update as r2\n[Huawei] comments\n[Lenovo] clarifies\n[Ericsson] doesn't agree with the change in step 10-11\n[Lenovo] has no strong position on step 10-11\n>>CC_4<<\n[Ericsson] like to see the latest revision\n[Lenovo] r2 is the latest, request comments\n>>CC_4<<\n[Nokia] comments\n[Nokia] is fine with r2\n[Huawei] is not convinced by r2\n[Lenovo] clarifies","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211866 ","New solution to key issue #2.1 ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Ericsson] comments for clarification\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[Ericsson] still has concern.\n[Huawei] asks for Ericsson's real concern\n[Nokia] requests for clarification\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[CMCC] comments for clarification\n[Huawei] clarifies","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211840 ","Add deatails to solution #6 ","China Mobile ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211839 ","Add evaluation to solution #1 ","China Mobile ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211841 ","Add evaluation to solution #6 ","China Mobile ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211659 ","Conclusion for Key Issue #1.1 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ",">>CC_2<<\n[Nokia] needs more time to consider\n>>CC_2<<","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211699 ","KI update Dispersion Analytics against DDoS ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211661 ","Delete EN of Solution#2 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Nokia] requests for update\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Nokia] proposes to add text in r2\n[Huawei] clarifies the comment from Nokia should be for 1691 thread rather than this\n[Nokia] is fine with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211661-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211691 ","EN Resolution Anomolous NF Behaviour ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Huawei] comments to update\n[Nokia] provides r1\n[Huawei] doesn't consider r1 address Huawei's concern\n[Nokia] provides r2\n[Huawei] is fine with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211691-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211692 ","Output analytics from NWDAF to detect Anomalous NF Behaviour ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212077 ","Discussion on detection of MitM attack using NWDAF ","Samsung ","[Ericsson] has simiilar comments as 2078","discussion ","Discussion ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212078 ","Solution on analytics for MitM attack detection ","Samsung ","[Huawei] proposes to note unless comments are resolved\n[Samsung] clarifies\n[Ericsson] keeps its position\n[Samsung] clarifies further","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212079 ","Solution on analytics for DoS attack detection ","Samsung ","[Ericsson] comments for clarification\n[Nokia] shares same similar concern with Ericsson and proposes to note unless the concerns are addressed\n[Samsung] clarifies\n[Ericsson] dosen't agree with Samsung's clarification\n[Samsung] clarifies","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211694 ","EN on solution relation with user consent study ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Huawei] proposes to note unless comments are resolved\n[Nokia] clarifies and asks for accepting resolution of EN\n[Huawei] comments\n[Nokia] requests for clarification about comment\n[Nokia] provides r1 \n[Huawei] needs more time, proposes to postpone\n[Nokia] replies","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211695 ","EN resolution on solution privacy preservation of transmitted data ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Huawei] proposes to note unless comments are resolved\n[Nokia] asks for accepting resolution of ENs and add another NOTE\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Nokia] proposes to change\n[Huawei] proposes to postpone","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211865 ","New solution to key issue #3.3 ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Nokia] proposes to note\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[Nokia] does not change position\n[Huawei] proposes to add a note to address Nokia's concern\n[Ericsson] proposes to note\n[Huawei] comments\n[Nokia] comments to update\n[Huawei] clarifies and will provide r1\n[Nokia] clarifies its comment\n[Ericsson] is ok with EN proposed by Nokia\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Ericsson] proposes to add an EN in evaluation part\n[Huawei] proposes not to add EN based on EN\n[Ericsson] insists to add EN\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Nokia] is fine with r2\n[Ericsson] is ok with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","revised","No ","draft_S3-211865-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211657 ","Conclusion for Key Issue #3.1 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Nokia] proposes to note\n>>CC_2<<\n[Nokia] already under discussion, \n[NTT] not a complete conclusion\n[Huawei] \n[Nokia] Data during transportation needs to be addressed, which is not scope of UC WID\n>>CC_2<<\n[Huawei] clarifies this is no conflict with the current solution\n[Nokia] proposes to postpone","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211658 ","Conclusion for Key Issue #3.2 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ",">>CC_2<<\n[Docomo] proposes to update a little\n>>CC_2<<\n[Docomo] provides concrete proposal\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Docomo] is fine with r1\n[Nokia] does not accept r1, and proposes to postpone","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ",null,"  "]
[null,null,"S3-212214","TR33.866v0.5.0","China Mobile",null,"draftTR","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-212214"]
["  ","  ","S3‑211400 ","LS Response on Network Slice PA Charging per maximum utilized bandwidth ","S2-21001347 ",null,"LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
[5.17,"Study on the security of AMF re-allocation ","S3‑211789 ","Addressing the Editors’ Note in solution #1 ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[DT]: Avoid speeling out the details of Reject message\n[Qualcomm] additionallly second sentence needs to be deleted for readablity \n[Qualcomm] provides r1\n","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211914 ","Update to solution #2 ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] request clarification\n[Ericsson] provides r1\n[Huawei] provides clarifications\n[Ericsson] comments\n[Huawei] suggests an EN on which registration request is re-routed to T-AMF\n[Ericsson] Huawei's issue is not related to sol# 2\n[Ericsson] provides r2\n[Huawei] fine with r2\n[Huawei] comments\n[Ericssion] provides clarification","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211790 ","Missing details on handling of possible unprotected messages in solution #3 ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Huawei] request clarifications  \n[Qualcomm] provides clarification\n[Huawei] comments\n[Qualcomm] commets\n[Huawei] comments\n[Qualcomm] ok to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211737 ","Update to Solution #4 ","Lenovo, Motorola Mobility ","[Ericsson] proposes clarifications\n[Lenovo] provides r1\n[Ericsson] proposes changes\n[Lenovo] provides r2\n[Ericsson] proposes changes\n[Lenovo] provides r3\n[Ericsson] fine with r3","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r3","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211738 ","Update to Solution #6 ","Lenovo, Motorola Mobility ","[Ericsson] requests clarifications\n[Lenovo] provides r1\n[Huawei] comments. Prefers to send LS to SA2\n[Samsung] agrees to send LS to SA2\n[Qualcomm] ok with r1\nDiscussion continues in thread S3-212124\n","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211791 ","ABBA parameter handling in solutions #6 and #7 ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Lenovo]: Proposes update with clarifications\n[Qualcomm]: provides clarificaion\n[Lenovo]: provides further comments\n[Qualcomm] provides feedback on the suggested updates\n[Lenovo] will do merging of S3-211791 in S3-211738 and S3-211739\n[Qualcomm] ok to note\n ","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211739 ","Update to Solution #7 ","Lenovo, Motorola Mobility ","[Lenovo] provides r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211502 ","Solution#8 Clarifications ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Huawei] comments\n[Nokia] deletion of the following ENs cannot be agreed without further clarification. \n[Ericsson] requires clarifications\nProvides clarification\n[Huawei] comments","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212100 ","Updates to solution#5 ","Samsung ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212101 ","Removal of Editor's Note in Solution#5 ","Samsung ","[Ericsson] has concerns about the proposed contribution \n[Samsung] provides clarification\n[Samsung] provides r1 (issue of GUTI collision in Solution #5 is no longer valid)\n[Huawei] disagree with the possibility of GUTI collision is low\n[ZTE] asks for clarification\n[Lenovo] asks for clarification\n[Samsung] provides clarification\n[Lenovo] proposes updates\n[Samsung] this discussion is not about GUTI collision. But ok to update.\n[Huawei] not fine with r1\n[Samsung] provides r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212102 ","Updates to evaluation in solution#5 ","Samsung ","[Huawei] proposes to note\n[Samsung] provides clarification\n[Huawei] contribution delets valid evaluation points\n[Samsung] provides clarification\n [Huawei] requested not to touch the existing ecvaluations and requested to add additional one\n[Samsung] provides r1\n[Huawei] comments\n[Samsung] ok to note if there is no consensus","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211918 ","AMF re-allocation: Solution #9 updates ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] request clarification\n[Lenovo] clarifications Required\n[Ericsson] provides r1\n[Huawei] proposes updates\nEricsson] provides r2\n[Huawei] comments\nEricsson] comments\n[Huawei] fine with r2\n[Lenovo] fine with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212093 ","Update to solution#9 ","Samsung ","[Huawei] suggest make it an independent solution from solution #9\n[Ericsson] could be presented as a separate solution to solution #9\n[Samsung] provides r1\n[Ericsson] suggest editorial changes on clause numbering\n[Samsung] provides r2\n[Ericsson] fine wth r2\n[Huawei] fine with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211572 ","New solution for AMF re-allocation ","ZTE Corporation ","[Huawei]: solution cannot be accepted in its current form\n[ZTE] propose to update the evaluation part \n[Samsung]: Asks question for clarification\n[ZTE] propose to reivse it \n[Samsung] fine to add the solution to TR and discuss this as alternate solution\n[Lenovo] Requires update and clarification\n[ZTE] provides r1\n[Ericsson] requires clarifications\n[ZTE] provides r2\n[Lenovo] Requires update\n[Ericsson] provides comments\n[ZTE] provides r3\n[Huawei] not fine with r3\n[ZTE] Asks whether EN will help to address Huawei's concern\n[ZTE] provides r4\n[Huawei] comments\n[ZTE] provides r5\n[Huawei] fine with r5","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r5","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211916 ","AMF re-allocation: Analysis of solutions ","Ericsson ",null,"discussion ","Discussion ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211920 ","AMF re-allocation: Discussion about the WID ","Ericsson ",null,"discussion ","Discussion ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212099 ","Comparison of solutions and propose way forward ","Samsung ","[Ericsson] does not endorse the discussion proposal\n[Samsung] provides clarification and r1\n[Lenovo] does not endorse the discussion \n[Samsung] need to add lot more criteria for evaluation\n>>CC_3<<\ndiscussed together with 1742 and 1917\n[Lenovo] \n[NEC] SA1 has new requirement in R18. which solution selected should take SA1 new requirement into consideration. Propose to send LS to SA1/SA2\n[Ericsson] \n[Samsung] comment on solution 9\n[Lenovo] does not against solution 9\n[Qualcomm] doesn't understand, comments on solution 5\n[Huawei] proposes impact on UE can be acceptable\n[ZTE] considers cateria is not suitable and sill think solutoin 9 should be on the table. conclusion should be made in next meeting\n[Lenovo] clarifies NSSAI based on SA2 desciption\n[CMCC] comments the creteria is not complete, AMF isolation requirement should be considered as first one.\n[Chair] summerize discussion as  1) try to discussed creteria in this meeting to get consensus; 2) try to work out solution(s) ; 3) make conclusion in next meeting\nThe discussion will be under 2099 thread, but 1742 and 1917 is still open rather than automatically noted.\n>>CC_3<<\n[CMCC] proposes to note this conclusion except the evaluation criteria for discussion\n[Huawei] proposes one more requirement on top of CMCC's one\n[Ericsson] asks to revise the doc\n[Samsung] Provides r2\n[lenovo] open issues are mentioned incorrectly for sol 5, 6, and 7\n>>CC_4<<\n[Ericsson] plan to have new doc based on the discussed criteria\n[Huawei] question on handling of new TDoC\n[Lenovo] time will be too short to check all criteria\n>>CC_4<<\n[Samsung] Provides r3\n[Ericsson] comments\n[Samsung] comments\n[Ericsson] comments\n[Samsung] provides r4\n[Lenovo] provides r5\n[ZTE] fine with r5\n[Huawei] provides r6\n[CMCC] could not agree any version before r6\n[Samsung] cannot accept other than r4\n[lenovo] cannot accept r4\n[Samsung] provides r7\n[Lenovo] not ok with r7\n[Ericssion] comments\n[CMCC] comments and suggested criteria for way forward\n[Samsung] fine with CMCC's suggestion\n[Lenovo] comments","discussion ","Discussion ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211742 ","Conclusion on Key Issue #1 ","Lenovo, Motorola Mobility ","[Ericsson] requests clarifications\n[Lenovo] will provide a revision with more clarifications \n>>CC_3<<\ndiscussed together with 1917 and 2099\n>>CC_3<<","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211917 ","AMF re-allocation: Conclusion ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] cannot agree it, in its current form\n[NEC] supports Solution#9\n[Samsung] willing to agree to Sol #5 and #9/S3-212093, if the group wants to agree to more than one solution\n[ZTE] suggest to discuss the criteria and make it stable this meeting. To make the final decision in the next meeting\n>>CC_3<<\ndiscussed together with 1917 and 2099\n>>CC_3<<\n[NEC] has preference for sol#9\n[ZTE] suggests to use 1917 thread for conclusion\n[Nec] comments and shres the requirements\n[Huawei] asks for clarification\n[CMCC] proposes to note conclusion\n[Lenovo] all the conclusions got noted.\n[NEC] comments","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
[null,null,"S3-212124","LS on Clarification of AMF Reallocation and network slice selection","Lenovo",">>CC_4<<\n[Lenovo] like to discuss within this week, if not possible then next week\n>>CC_4<<\n[Ericsson] need to cut down some parts\n[Ericsson] provides r1\n[Lenovo] changes are fine. Provides additional comments\n[Ericsson] comments and provides r2\n[Huawei] LS is quite long\n[ZTE] fine to send LS\n[Lenovo] provides r3\n[Samsung] provides r4\n[Ericsson] provides r5\n[Samsung] r5 is fine\n[Lenovo] comments. Can discuss and update the draft\n[Huawei] comments\n[Huawei] comments to remove reference in r4","LS out ","Approval ","No ","Yes","approved","No ","r17"]
[5.18,"Study on Security for NR Integrated Access and Backhaul ","S3‑211362 ","LS on using MOBIKE in Integrated Access and Backhaul system ","R3-211297 ","to be replied to in 1520?","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","replied to","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211519 ","Discussion on R3 LS on MOBIKE ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai-Bell ",null,"discussion ","Endorsement ","Yes ","Yes","endorsed","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211520 ","REly LS on MOBIKE usage in IAB ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai-Bell ","[Huawei]: supports it. Propose modification to the text\n[Nokia] question on the term ‘Intra-Donor-CU Inter-Donor-DU topology adoption ‘ \n[Huawei] TS 38.401 use the term as it is \n[Nokia] provides r1\n[Huawei] fine with r1\n[NTT DoCoMo] suggest to inclde \"only IP addresses change\"\n[Nokia] provides r2\n[NTT DoCoMo] fine with r2\n[Huawei] fine with r2\n","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211637 ","Clarification to protect F1 interface security for IAB in NR-DC mode ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Qualcomm] not sure whether we need a draft CR at this stage\n[Qualcomm] propose to note this document\n[Huawei] fine to note this document\n","draftCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212107 ","[IAB] Unprotected BAP Control PDU exchange ","Samsung ","[Ericsson] propose to remove the security requirements\n[Samsung] provides r1\n[Qualcomm] asks question for clarification\n[Samsung] provides clarification\n[Ericsson] it be ok for Samsung to postpone\n[Samsung] cannot agree to postpone. Propose, KI can go in, as pCR is currently and to decide whether requirement is needed in the next meeting \n[Ericsson]  fine with Samsung proposal\n","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r1","  "]
[5.19,"Study on the security of the system enablers for devices having multiple Universal Subscriber Identity Modules ","S3‑211402 ","LS on System support for Multi-USIM devices ","S2-2102039 ","[Chair] proposes to note\n>>CC_1<<\n[Intel] agrees to note\nProposed to note(1st challenge)\n>>CC_1<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211431 ","LS on NAS-based busy indication ","R2-2104354 ","[Chair] proposes to note\n>>CC_1<<\nProposed to note(1st challenge)\n>>CC_1<<","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211594 ","Updates to solution 1 ","Intel K.K. ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211595 ","Conclusion to Key issue 1,2 ","Intel K.K. ","[Intel] provides r1 based on discussion in 2006 thread\n[Xiaomi] comments\n[Intel] provides r2\n[Xiaomi] is fine with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211595-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211596 ","Key issue on security aspects of Paging Cause ","Intel K.K. ","[Huawei] proposes to revise or merged into 1667\n[Samsung] proposes to update\n[Intel] provides r1 to remove requirement and adds a note as Samsung suggested\n[Huawei] is fine with r1\n[QC] requests to revise\n[Samsung] is fine with r1 but with typo suggestion, and clarifies to QC's comment\n[QC] does not agree to add specific text\n[Samsung] does not accept QC's proposal\n>>CC_4<<\n>>CC_4<<\n[Intel] like to know Samsung concern\n[Samsung] it is already mentioned in e-mail disc\n[Ericsson] proposed compromised text\n[Samsung] fine with the compromised text\nneed to be checked by email\n>>CC_4<<\n[Ericsson] provides compromised text\n[Intel] provides r2\n[Samsung] could not find r2 in draft folder\n[QC] is fine with Ericsson's proposal and also could not find r2\n[Intel] uploads r2\n[QC] is fine with r2\n[Huawei] provides r3\n[Intel] provides r4\n[Samsung] supports r3\n[Huawei] does not accept r4\n[QC] objects r3\n[Intel] agrees with QC's comments\n[Samsung] comments and provides concrete proposals\n[Huawei] is fine with Samsung's proposal\n[QC] does not agree with Samsung's proposal\n[Intel] can accept Samsung's proposal but doesn't think there is need to send LS out\n[Huawei] replies to QC\n[Samsung] clarifies\n[QC] can only accept r2 or r4, or note this doc\n[Samsung] lives with r4\n[Huawei] is not fine with r4","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211666 ","A new Key issue on paging cause ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Nokia] comments for clarification\n[Intel] disagrees\n[NEC] has same view with Nokia\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[NEC] still has concern on MITM\n[Huawei]  clarifies further\n[QC] proposes to note\n[NEC} needs more clarifications for the argument","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211667 ","A new solution to paging cause ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Nokia] comments for clarification\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[Nokia] proposes way forward\n[QC] proposes to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212004 ","MUSIM: New Solution for Key Issue #1 for RRC_Idle UE ","Xiaomi Technology ","[Nokia] comments for clarification\n[Xiaomi] clarifies\n[Nokia] has further comments\n[Xiaomi] replies\n[Intel] comments\n[Xiaomi] gives clarification to mitigate Intel's concern\n[Intel] has further comments\n[Huawei] proposes to note\n[Ericsson] proposes to check the status in RAN and SA2 at first\n[QC] proposes to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212005 ","MUSIM: New Solution for Key Issue #1 for RRC_Inactive UE ","Xiaomi Technology ","[Nokia] comments for clarification\n[Xiaomi] clarifies\n[QC] proposes to note\n[Xiaomi] clarifies\n[Ericsson] suggests to move on unless clear issues are found for NAS security","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212006 ","MUSIM: Conclusion for Key Issue #2 ","Xiaomi Technology ","[Docomo] proposes to add description\n[Intel] agrees with this EN and will provide revision for 1595 to remove conclusion related to key issue 2\n[Xiaomi] is ok with Docomo's comment and replies to Intel's proposal, and is ok to merge after revision, provides r1\n[Docomo] is fine with Intel's comment","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-212006-r1","  "]
[null,null,"S3-212168","TR33.873","Intel K.K. ",null,"draftTR","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-212168r1"]
[null,null,"S3-212259","cover sheet for approval of TR 33.873","Intel K.K. ","[Xiaomi] provides comments and provides r2\n[Intel] is fine with r2","TS or TR cover ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","r2"]
["  ","  ","S3‑212020 ","MUSIM: New Solution for Key Issue #1 for RRC_Idle UE ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212021 ","MUSIM: New Solution for Key Issue #1 for RRC_Inactive UE ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212022 ","MUSIM: Conclusion for Key Issue #2 ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212036 ","MUSIM: New Solution for Key Issue #1 for RRC_Idle UE ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212037 ","MUSIM: New Solution for Key Issue #1 for RRC_Inactive UE ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212038 ","MUSIM: Conclusion for Key Issue #2 ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["5.20","Study on enhanced Security Aspects of the 5G Service Based Architecture ","S3‑212094 ","New solution for key issue#1: Authentication of NF service producer in indirect communication ","Samsung ","[Ericsson] comments\n[Samsung] provides r1\n[Ericsson] proposes changes on r1\n[Samsung] provides r2\n[Ericsson] fine with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-212094-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211968 ","KI1 Security requirements for authentication of NRF and NFp in indirect commuication ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ericsson] proposes to note unless clarified\n[Nokia] provides r1\n[Ericsson] comments","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","draft_S3-211968-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211969 ","Sol1 deployment scenarios ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ericsson] proposes to note unless clarified\n[Nokia] provides r1\n[Ericsson] ok with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211969-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211970 ","ENs on Sol1 Service response verification in model C ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ericsson] proposes updates\n[Nokia] provides r1\n[Ericsson] proposes to update r1\n[Nokia] provides r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211970-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211971 ","Threats and requirements to KI3 on Service access authorization in Subscribe-Notify ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ericsson] proposes to note unless clarified\n[Ericsson] proposes to use 901 to discuss threats and requirements for KI#3\n[Samsung] comments\n[Nokia] proposes to merge with 901","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","draft_S3-211901-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211901 ","Requirement of subscribe-notification key issue ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Nokia] provides r1 (merger of 971 and 901)\n[Samsung] comments\n[Ericsson] comments\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Samsung] requirement from 2095 to be merrged with 1901\n[Nokia] asks for including requirement from 2095 \n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Ericsson] comments\n[Huawei] provides clarifications and r3\n[Ericsson] not ok with r3\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Nokia] Comments","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212095 ","New solution for key issue#3: Authorization of notification request ","Samsung ","[Ericsson] comments\n[Samsung] requirement from 2095 to be merrged with 1901\n[Samsung] provides r1\n[Ericsson] needs to wait untill the KI and requirements gets stable\n[Nokia] propose to update to r2 with EN","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211972 ","Solution on URI verification and notification acceptance ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ericsson] solution proposals should be noted \n[Nokia] propose to update to r1 with EN","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211975 ","EN resolution on sol 2 - NFc authorizing SCP to act on its behalf ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ericsson] proposes updates, how the producer verifies different CCAs\n[Nokia] provides r1\n[Ericsson] ok with r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211975-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211976 ","Evaluation on sol 2 - NFc authorizing SCP to act on its behalf ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ericsson] asks for updates\n[Nokia] provides r1\n[Ericsson] proposes to update r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211976-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211977 ","Evaluation to sol 3 - proof of possession of CCA NFc authorizes the SCP to act on behalf of an NFc ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ericsson] proposes to merge to S3-211766 and comments","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","draft_S3-211766","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211766 ","Evaluation of Solution #3 \"Using existing procedures for authorization of SCP to act on behalf of an NF Consumer\" ","Ericsson ","[Nokia] 1977 merged with this doc\n[Nokia] provides r1\n[Ericsson] provides r2\n[Nokia] not ok with r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211766-r4","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211765 ","Update Solution #5: End-to-end integrity protection of HTTP body and method ","Ericsson ","[Huawei] comments\n[ericsson] provides r1\n[Huawei] comments\n[Ericsson] provides r2","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211973 ","KI on Access token usage by all NFs of an NF Set ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Huawei] proposes to note unless clarified\n[Nokia] proposes to capture the KI and any concerns related to solution\n[Verizon] agree with Nokia's proposal\n[Huawei] withdraws objection","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211974 ","Solution on Access token request for NF Set ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Huawei] proposes to wait for the conclusion of 1973\n[Huawei] proposes to add EN incase if the KI is approved\n[Ericsson] proposes EN\n[Nokia] fine with the changes proposed by Ericsson","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211974-r3 approved","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211862 ","Discussion on NF Domain granularity authorization ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Ericsson] proposes to note DP and and discuss in 1863 for SID update and 1864 for KI","discussion ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211863 ","Update to the SID of eSBA for NF Domain granularity authorization ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Ericsson] asks for clarification\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Nokia] comments\n[Huawei] provides clarification\n[Ericsson] agrees with Nokia'scomment that no need to update the SID","SID revised ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211864 ","New KI on NF Domain granularity authorization ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Ericsson] comments\n[Nokia] comments","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211979 ","Trust model ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ericsson] comments and propose changes\n[Nokia] provides r1\n[Ericsson] proposes to update r1","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211979-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211978 ","KI on Roaming case for token-based authorization ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell ","[Ericsson] proposes to note unless clarified","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
[5.21,"Study on enhanced security for network slicing Phase 2 ","S3‑211604 ","update to KI#1 ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[DT] proposes to remove last phrases \"if sensitive\"\n[Huawei] is fine and will provide revision\n[Xiaomi] proposes to merge 1604 into 2007\n[Huawei] proposes to use 1604 as baseline and provides r1\n[QC] supports to merge 1604 and 2007, prefers 2007 revision as baseline, and disagrees with the addtion threat and requirement in 1604r1\n[Ericsson] considers 1604 is merged into 2007","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Merged","No ",null,"  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211605 ","new key issue proposal ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Xiaomi] requests for clarification\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[Xiaomi] has further comments\n[Huawei] has further clarification\n[Xiaomi] comments\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[Xiaomi] proposes to note","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211794 ","Some analysis for key issue #1 ","Qualcomm Incorporated ","[Huawei] disagrees\n[Xiaomi] proposes to merge 1794 into 2007\n[QC] is ok to be noted","other ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212007 ","eNS2: Add Threat Analysis to KI #1 ","Xiaomi Technology ","[Huawei] comments\n[Xiaomi] clarifies and provides r1\n[Ericsson] requires clarification\n[Xiaomi] clarifies and provides r2\n[Huawei] has further comments and proposes to use 604 as baseline\n[Xiaomi] clarifies and prefer to use r2 as baseline for further discussion\n[Ericsson] comments\n[Huawei] comments\n[Xiaomi] replies and provides r3\n[Huawei] comments\n[Xiaomi] clarifies and provides r4\n[Huawei] is ok with r4\n[QC] is ok with r4\n[Ericsson] is ok with r4","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-212007-r4","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211954 ","New KI: DoS on Network Slice Quota ","US National Security Agency, Johns Hopkins University APL, CISA ECD, NIST ","[Huawei] comments\n[Xiaomi] shares similar comments with Huawei\n[US NSA] clarifies\n[Huawei] comments the concerns rasied by US NSA could be addressed by SCAS specs.\n[US NSA] clarifies that SCAS could not provide security for running and attacking detection.\n[Huawei] does not convinced with clarification\n[Xiaomi] shares same view with Huawei\n[US NSA] clarifies further and does not consider SCAS could address the issue\n[US NSA] clarifies in another way\n[Huawei] proposes to note\n[US NSA] is ok to be noted","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212008 ","eNS2: New Key Issue on Primary Authentication with NSAC ","Xiaomi Technology ","[Ericsson] comments for clarifications\n[Xiaomi] replies\n[Ericsson] has further comments\n[Xiaomi] is fine to note this paper","pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
[null,null,"S3-212186","TR33.874 v0.2.0","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Xiaomi] provides editorial comments\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Xiaomi] is fine with r2","draftTR","Approval ","Yes","Yes","revised","No ","S3-212279"]
[null,null,"S3-212279","TR33.874 v0.2.0","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Huawei] announces this is the update of 2186.","draftTR","Approval ","Yes","Yes","Approval","No"]
["  ","  ","S3‑211482 ","New KI: DoS on Network Slice Quota ","US National Security Agency, Johns Hopkins University APL, CISA ECD, NIST ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212023 ","eNS2: Add Threat Analysis to KI #1 ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212024 ","eNS2: New Key Issue on Primary Authentication with NSAC ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212039 ","eNS2: Add Threat Analysis to KI #1 ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212040 ","eNS2: New Key Issue on Primary Authentication with NSAC ","Xiaomi Technology ",null,"pCR ","Approval ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
[5.22,"Study on non-seamless WLAN Offload in 5GS using 3GPP credentials ","S3‑211515 ","Skeleton for 5G NSWO TR ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai-Bell ","[Huawei] proposes to revise\n[Nokia] proposes to add EN to capture Huawei's comment\n[Huawei] is fine with proposed EN, but would like to reword when progressed enough\n[AT&T] supports Nokia's proposal","other ","  ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211516 ","Scope for 5G NSWO TR ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai-Bell ","[Huawei] proposes to use the wording in approved WID\n[Nokia] asks for more clarification on comment\n[Interdigital] comments\n[Huawei] clarifies for the comments and proposes to add a link\n[AT&T] supports Nokia\n[Nokia] provides r1\n[Huawei] is fine with r1","other ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Revised","No ","S3-212148","  "]
[null,null,"S3-212148","Scope for 5G NSWO TR ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai-Bell ",null,"other ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ",null,"S3-211516"]
["  ","  ","S3‑211517 ","Introduction for 5G NSWO TR ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai-Bell ","[Huawei] comments and propose to keep open until have clear progress\n[Nokia] clarifies and proposes to add EN to capture Huawei's concern in skeleton\n[Huawei] prefers the EN in 1515 thread\n[AT&T] supports Nokia's proposal\n[Nokia] provides r1\n[Ericsson] is fine with r1\n[Huawei] does not agree with r1\n[Nokia] clarifies\n[Huawei] proposes EN\n[Nokia] provides r2\n[Huawei] is fine with r2","other ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Revised","No ","S3-212149","  "]
[null,null,"S3-212149","Introduction for 5G NSWO TR ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai-Bell ",null,"other ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ",null,"S3-211517"]
["  ","  ","S3‑211518 ","KI: Support of EAP Authentication for 5G NSWO ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai-Bell ","[Huawei] proposes to revise\n[Nokia] clarifies\n[Huawei] is waiting for Nokia's revision\n[AT&T] supports Nokia\n[Nokia] provides r1\n[Nokia] provides merger r1 to include 2111r1 and 1518 as 1518r2\n[QC] is fine with r2\n[Lenovo] is fine with r2( in2111 thread)\n[Huawei] proposes the privacy requirement is missed\n[Ericsson] proposes to update\n[Lenovo] asks question to Ericssson\n[Nokia] provides r3\n[Nokia] replies to Huawei and QC and provides r4\n[Huawei] is fine with r4\n[Ericsson] is fine with r4\n[Lenovo] is fine with r4\n[QC] is fine with r4","other ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","revised","No ","S3-212150","  "]
[null,null,"S3-212150","KI: Support of EAP Authentication for 5G NSWO ","Nokia, Nokia Shanghai-Bell ",null,"other ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ",null,"S3-211518"]
["  ","  ","S3‑212111 ","Key Issue on subscription identifier privacy ","Lenovo, Motorola Mobility ","[Huawei] proposes to use the wording in approved WID\n[Nokia] suggests to merge 2111 and 1518\n[Lenovo] is fine to be merged\n[Nokia] provides merger r1 to include 2111r1 and 1518 as 1518r2","discussion ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","S3-212150","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑212113 ","Solution on NSWO authentication ","Lenovo, Motorola Mobility ","[Huawei] proposes to note\n[Nokia] proposes to add ENs instead of note\n[Huawei] does not want to extend to solution, and suggests to bring it back next meeting\n[Lenovo] wants to know Huawei's concern\n[AT&T] supports to approve in this meeting\n[Lenovo] provides r1\n[Nokia] comments\n[QC] proposes to note\n[Lenovo] provides r2\n[Lenovo] replies to QC","discussion ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ",null,"  "]
[null,null,"S3-212151","TR33.881","Nokia","[Nokia] announces the TR number is assigned, so revise the document","draftTR","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","revised","No ","draft_S3-212151-r1"]
[5.23,"New study item proposals ","S3‑211477 ","Standardising Automated TLS Certificate Management in SBA ","BT plc ",">>CC_6<<\ncontinue on email\n>>CC_6<<\n[BT] provides r1\n[CableLabs] supports\n[Docomo] supports\n[Verizon] supports\n[Chair] points out that is for discussion, suggest to re-submit in future meeting\n[BT] provides r2 to incorporate supporting companies and asks to change from discussion to approval\n[MCC] comments on missing deadline for information/approval and rapporteur responsibility\n>>CC_8<<\nChairs challenges whether it is urget to approve this as r18 SID and proposes to postpone to November\nBT presents there are many supporters,\nNokia proposes to approve it but not set agenda.\nBT proposes to approve this meeting to start the study offline.\nCableLabs supports Nokia proposal\nChair would like to check with MCC, MCC confirms Nokia's proposal is applicable\n>>CC_8<<\n[BT] provides r3\n[Ericsson] proposes to update r3\n[Huawei] has similar comments\n[CableLabs] clarifies about the time schedule\n[BT] clarifies to Ericsson and will provides r4\n[BT] clarifies to Huawei\n[BT] provides r4\n[Ericsson] is fine with r4\n[Huawei] is generally fine with r4 and with minor comments\n[BT] provides r5 to incorporate Huawei's comment\n[Huawei] is fine with r4\n[Nokia] asks to be supporting company","SID new ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","approved","No ","draft_S3-211477-r4 (r7 approved)","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211668 ","Discussion on penetration testing ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Huawei] considers it can be seen as endorsed but corresponding SID is not approved so this should be noted","discussion ","Endorsement ","Yes ","Yes","Noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211669 ","A new SID - penetration testing ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Huawei] provides r3 to add supporting companies\n[DT] provides r4 to give comments\n>>CC_6<<\nHuawei presents\nDocomo doesn't understand the objective\nVF comments too many SIDs we have. \nChair encourage discussion focus on R17 topics.\n>>CC_6<<\n[Nokia] proposes to note\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[Lenovo] comments for clarifications\n[Nokia] comments\n[Docomo] proposes to note and bring it in future meeting\n[Huawei] provides r6 to address the issue\n[Huawei] replies to Nokia's comment\n[Lenovo] comments\n[Huawei] clarifies\n[Lenovo] comments\n>>CC_8<<\nHuawei present the status, considers that may need to be noted. \n>>CC_8<<","SID new ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","draft_S3-211669-r6","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211670 ","Draft rely LS to GSMA on penetration testing ","Huawei, HiSilicon ","[Huawei] announces it should be noted","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","No","noted","No ","  ","  "]
[5.24,"Other study areas (no release restrictions) ","  ","  ","  ",null,"  ","  ","  ","  ","  ","  ","  ","  "]
[6,"CVD and research ","S3‑211382 ","User location identification from Carrier Aggregation secondary cell activation messages ","GSMA ","replied by 1638","LS in ","  ","Yes ","Yes","replied to","No ","draft_S3-211638-r2","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211473 ","CR to TS 43.020 - R16 - Removal of support for GEA2 ","VODAFONE Group Plc ","[MCC] comments on this and all soociated CRs\n[Apple] requests clarification before approval\n[Xiaomi] has similar comments as Apple.\n[VF] provides r1\n[QC] has no issue with r-16 changes (in 1491 thread)","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211490 ","Discussion document on the use of GEA1 and GEA2 ","VODAFONE Group Plc ","[MCC] comments on this and all soociated CRs\n[VF] clarifies","discussion ","Information ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211491 ","CR to TS 43.020 - R11 - Removal of GEA1 and GEA2 due to security concerns ","VODAFONE Group Plc ","[MCC] comments on this and all soociated CRs\n[VF] provides r1\n[QC] does not agree with r1\n[VF] provides r2\n[QC] is fine with r2","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211492 ","CR to TS 43.020 - R12 - Depreciation of GEA2 due to security concerns ","VODAFONE Group Plc ","[MCC] comments on this and all soociated CRs\n[VF] provides r1\n[QC] does not agree with r1\n[VF] provides r2\n[QC] is fine with r2","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211493 ","CR to TS 43.020 - R13 - Removal of GEA1 and GEA2 due to security concerns - mirror ","VODAFONE Group Plc ","[MCC] comments on this and all soociated CRs\n[VF] provides r1\n[QC] does not agree with r1\n[VF] provides r2\n[QC] is fine with r2","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211494 ","CR to TS 43.020 - R14 - Removal of GEA1 and GEA2 due to security concerns - mirror ","VODAFONE Group Plc ","[MCC] comments on this and all soociated CRs\n[VF] provides r1\n[QC] does not agree with r1\n[VF] provides r2\n[QC] is fine with r2","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211495 ","CR to TS 43.020 - R15 - Removal of GEA1 and GEA2 due to security concerns - mirror ","VODAFONE Group Plc ","[MCC] comments on this and all soociated CRs\n[VF] provides r1\n[QC] does not agree with r1\n[VF] provides r2\n[QC] is fine with r2","CR ","Agreement ","Yes ","Yes","agreed","No ","r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211615 ","Reply LS on SLIC ","Nanjing Ericsson Panda Com Ltd ","[Huawei[ proposes to merge 1615 into 1638(in 1638 thread)\n[Ericsson] is fine to be merged (1638 thread)","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","merged","No ","draft_S3-211638-r1","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211638 ","Reply LS on User location identification from Carrier Aggregation secondary cell activation messages ","Huawei, Hisilicon ","[Huawei] proposes to merge 1615 into 1638\n[Ericsson] is fine to be merged\n>>CC_7<<\nHuawei presents and proposes to merge with Ericsson's contribution\nEricsson is ok\n>>CC_7<<\n[Huawei] provides r1\n[Ericsson] comments to change \"not worthy\" and fine with others\n[Huawei] provides r2\n[Ericsson] is ok with r2","LS out ","Approval ","Yes ","Yes","Approved","No ","draft_S3-211638-r2","  "]
[7,"Any Other Business ","S3‑211359 ","SA3 meeting calendar ","SA WG3 Chair ",null,"other ","Information ","Yes ","Yes","revised ","No ","S3‑211433 ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211360 ","Draft agenda for SA3 104-e ","SA WG3 Chair ",null,"agenda ","Discussion ","No ","Yes","withdrawn ","Yes ","  ","  "]
["  ","  ","S3‑211433 ","SA3 meeting calendar ","SA WG3 Chair ","[Apple] comments on SA3#106, #106adhoc, and #108bis with #109 together\n[Huawei] comments on  SA3#106, #106adhoc and #108bis/#109, but has different proposal for #106adhoc, #108bis/#109 compared to Apple\n>>CC_7<<\nmany comments on 103bis, would like to cancel\nsome other proposal: to keep 103bis and to shorten 104 in one week. 103 bis for study items. with that conclusion, 104 works on WIDs.\nChair raises concern about WI time presure, that SA3 work should be done in November meeting. Cancelation about 103bis may cause more presure on upcoming meeting.\n>>CC_7<<\n[Nokia] does not agree to have meeting in August/begining Sept, and asks meeting free period from mid-June till mid-Oct\n[Interdigital] shares information that SA3 canceled June and July 2021 meeting together\n>>CC_8<<\nOrange proposes not to have July meeting\nEricsson supports Orange\nInterdigital supports Orange\nOrange proposes to use exception sheet rather to extend the meeting\nChair clarfies the deadline is already extended from June to December\nApple is ok to have July meeting\nVF focus on WID\nDocomo proposes to have 2 short meetign\nNokia proposes to not have new study until R17 work has done\nEricsson proposes way forward,\nThales is not in favor of July meeting\nSamsung proposes to have short meeting in July\nHuawei proposes to have short July meeting\nChair proposes to have specific conf call to push forward without decision power in July, and have final decision in Auguest\nVF prefers to have multiple slot for 1-2 days, rather than 1 hours for several days\nEricsson proposes way forward\nApple objects to have october meeting\n>>CC_8<<\n[Chair] announces SA3#103bis-e has been cancelled\n[Huawei] provides information about SA2's plan","other ","Information ","Yes ","Yes","noted","No ","  ","S3‑211359 "]