Please note that the SMG3 WP’C’ document number can be derived from the 3GPP document number by adding an offset of 300, as shown in the numbering of this document.

Agenda item	Agenda item title	Tdoc 3GPP N2-99	Title	Source	Result	
1	Opening, approval of agenda	001	Proposed agenda & time plan	WG2 Convenors/ WPC chairman	Agreed with modification of running order for agenda item 4.	
2	Document allocation	002	Proposed allocation of documents to agenda items	WG2 Convenor/ WPC chairman		
3	Terms of reference	028	Proposed guidelines for 3GPP TSG-CN-WG2 Work	WG2 Convenors/ WPC chairman	Masami presented 028 annex A, which summarises ToR for TSG CN WG2 as a subset of ToR for TSG CN. Question: what is the intention for distinction between the 3GPP work on UMTS and the ETSI-specific work on UMTS? This is really for decision at a level above WG2. Another question: what about interworking with 2nd generation networks other than GSM (e.g. IS41)? Masami reckons this is an issue for the Koreans. Stephen Hayes says it should be escalated to TSG SA2. IP concerned that inter-network interworking should not fall between two WGs. John Fenn asks for further clarification in the ToR; proposed text is “Interworking with GSM networks”. Masami concerned that this in turn could lead to misunderstanding. Masami asked whether WG2 should produce its own more detailed ToR in addition to a subset of the CN ToR, but it was accepted that the current definition as a subset is acceptable. David Smith asks for a preamble to say what the ToR are about; IP will draft.
John Fenn asked for clarification of the “Packet related Matters” bullet. Stephen Hayes provided it; the question is then whether this is our remit or WG3s? Decided to make the existing bullet more specific, to show it belongs to WG3, and draft a new bullet to cover what we’re responsible for – effectively the successor to GSM 09.60 & similar.
TTC propose that interworking with PDC should also be included in the interworking ToR. Masami opposes, on the basis that interworking with PDC is a local issue for Japan. Harald D also agrees that we should concentrate on interwrorking with GSM, & leave it to later to look at interworking with other 2nd generation systems. Decided to include in the ToR the longer term possibility of interworking with other 2nd generation networks; however Harald points out that this would have an impact on TSG SA2 as well, because it affects the architecture. Harald also raises the question of division of responsibility for architecture between TSG SA and TSG CN, and within TSG CN. Masami’s view is that WG2 should deal with mobility management interworking, whereas WG3 deals with bearer service interworking.
Considering section 3.2 of 028, decided we should also deal with evolution of basic call stage 2, & exceptionally maintenance of CAMEL phase 1.
Steffen H proposes that we should also continue the maintenance of existing GSM phase 2+ SS. Jeremy wants to firewall this maintenance work, so that it doesn’t take up a lot of 3GPP time. Harald D reminds us that there shouldn’t be “needless divergence” between evolving GSM core network.
On the Network reference model, Jeremy Fuller believes we should try to avoid spending a great deal of time on it – SMG1 spent ages on the commercial reference model! Jane H points out that we have a useful basic NRM for GSM (in GSM 09.02), which identifies the interfaces. Masami clarified that his aim is to define only the interfaces on which our signalling protocols work; we also need to think about how we signal to the world outside WG2. This would mean going up to TSG-CN and even TSG-SA-WG2. Jeremy F warns against getting into the realm of starting to define functional interfaces, which can take ages!	
4	Working methods	004	3GPP Working Procedures	3GPP secretariat		
4.1	Frequency of meetings	028	Proposed guidelines for 3GPP TSG-CN-WG2 Work	WG2 Convenors/ WPC chairman	Jane H reckons that the minimum reasonable interval between meetings is 6 weeks, to allow people to do work between meetings. TTC shoot for monthly meetings, in order to get the specs ready for end 1999. Masami suggests we could start with 2-monthly intervals, and if necessary insert other meetings when/if more frequent meetings are needed. For the April meeting with SPS3, Christian offered to investigate the possibility of extending the CAMEL session in Turkey to 3 days.
Jeremy proposes that the “SPS3” meetings could be drafting groups, whose output can be presented for approval to CN WG2; however Christian thinks this would not be acceptable to SPS3. However we have to avoid rediscussion of issues which were decided in an earlier meeting. Jane H flagged up the danger of not involving SPS3 experts in the discussion early on. David Smith is concerned about whether he has to attend the “SPS3” meetings.
Jeremy throws a pebble into the pool: are we going to use ETSI INAP CS-2 as the base for CAMEL phase 3, or ITU-T INAP? This triggered big debate. Eventually concluded that we should take ETSI INAP as the working assumption, and open the door for contributions to overturn the working assumption.	
		022	A proposal to start up TSG_CN_WG2 from TTC	TTC SWG661		
4.2	Internal structure	028	Proposed guidelines for 3GPP TSG-CN-WG2 Work	WG2 Convenors/ WPC chairman	Clause 4 refers. Jane H points to CAMEL interactions with GPRS as needing joint discussion between WPA & WPB; similarly interactions with ISUP & B-ISUP.
Agreed on internal division into 2 subgroups, with one chaired by WG2 chairman & the other by the vice-chairman. We shall also need 2 secretaries; and Franco warns that PT-SMG are contracted to provide support only to the end of August. Harald raises question of whether the subgroups are subgroups of WG2, or separate WGs under TSG-CN. This is of secondary importance compared with the need to bring the experts together. Stanislav points to the logistic problems for hosting double meetings; however Jeremy stresses the importance of having the experts together. Harald says we can accept the possibility of evolving our arrangements, & if necessary run subgroups separately, if we can’t accommodate them in the same venue.
Importance of people registering in good time (and getting out the invitations and agenda in good time – at least 30 days ahead!) was stressed.
	
4.3	Co-operation with other groups	010	Proposed Co-operation between SMG3, 3GPP and SPS3	Alcatel	Presents the annex of GSM 10.78 which gives the basis for the co-operation between SMG3 WP’C’ and SPS3 on CAMEL. Proposes to continue the co-operation to include TSG-CN WG2.
John Fenn suggests that ETSI rules allow the chairman of an ETSI committee to invite observers from companies outside ETSI; this is backed up by John Meredith.
Sugiyama of TTC wants to know how other RSOs such as TTC can be involved in the CAMEL phase 3 work. Jeremy asks whether we should review the “non-WG2” meetings on logistic grounds, and possibly replace the SPS3 joint meetings with joint meetings with other organisations (eg TTC, T1S1). After break, position shifted to suggestion of joint meetings with all interested parties; no conclusion. 	
		028	Proposed guidelines for 3GPP TSG-CN-WG2 Work	WG2 Convenors/ WPC chairman	Stanislav identifies that GSM supplementary services work will require interaction with TSG-S1 & TSG-S2. Steffen H raises the question of how we handle enhanced USSD; it seems that we would handle it if anyone does, but it’s not certain that there will be contributions on it! Proposed to have 2 categories of work item: those which we can expect to attract contributions, and those which will go on the agenda only if there’s advanced notice that there will be contributions.
John Fenn flags up the need to develop time plans; usual caveats about the impracticability of doing over-detailed plans.
Stephen Hayes reckons it’s going too far to identify the units in 3GPP with which we interwork; we should only show the bodies with which we have formal relationships. Jeremy wants to leave the door open for us to talk to anybody we need to! Masami says he wants to show the relationships with groups which provide inputs to us (eg SA WG1 & WG2).
Next question: how formal does the reapproval by SMG & STCs of outputs from WG2 have to be? Hope that we can go straight from TSG CN (WG2) to SMG.	
4.4	Available baseline documents	005	3GPP Document numbering and FTP directory structure	3GPP secretariat		
		022	A proposal to start up TSG_CN_WG2 from TTC	TTC SWG661		
		035	Proposal for GSM documents to be maintained by CN-WG2	Vodafone		
4.5	Document handling	028	Proposed guidelines for 3GPP TSG-CN-WG2 Work	WG2 Convenors/ WPC chairman	Jane H stresses the importance of having a document list to be able to select the documents which are to be downloaded.
Stanislav asks for a rule that all documents which include SDL should be available in paper for all delegates. Rvised proposal, taking account of comments, in 040	
		040	Proposed document handling procedure for 3GPP TSG-CN-WG2	Co-convenor (Ian Park)		
5	Work items to be handled					
5.1	Mobility management	003	Liaison statement on Single Mobility Management Instance in HLR	SMG12	Masami proposes that we simply note this for the moment, and invite contributions to propose a work item at the next meeting. Accepted.	
		008	Liaison statement on Single Mobility Management Instance in HLR	SMG12	Duplicate of 3GPP N2-99003 - withdrawn	
5.2	Simultaneous circuit/ packet mode	006	Liaison statement on UMTS simultaneous mode	SMG12	See discussion against 007.	
		007	Liaison statement on UMTS simultaneous mode	TSG SA WG1	This is a response to 006. There seems to be confusion over what SMG12 are asking for; the handling of mobility for simultaneous mode would have an impact on the functional behaviour of the MSC/VLR. Masami has concerns that before we can progress with the work we need to have a proper WID. Jeremy suggests we should send a liaison statement back to SMG12, accepting the principle and asking for clarification so that we can construct a WID. Jeremy points us to UMTS 23.20 section 9.18 for more details of simultaneous mode operation. Discussion over whether CN WG2 should really generate the WID for this (and indeed other Wis we should handle). Masami suggests we could respond to SMG12/SA WG2 proposing that they draft the WID! Alternatively we could simply take a stable 23.20 (in this case) as the driver for our work.
Masami proposes that we can accept new work items up to our meeting in May; however John Fenn asks whether we can commit to deliver on those work items by the end of 1999. If we agree to this, Jeremy thinks we ought to warn all 3GPP WGs that we won't progress any work unless we're convinced that there is a WID in existence. Masami believe we should limit this to relevant TSGs (ie TSG SA). Masami also identifies that we need to establish our position at the TSG-CN plenary. Harald proposes that we should raise our proposed list of Wis, together with those from WG1 & WG3, at the CN plenary.	
5.3	GPRS evolution	009	Liaison statement on UMTS developments	SMG12	Noted	
5.4	CAMEL phase 3	011	Proposed Work Item for CAMEL STAGE2: Addition of Analyzed_Info DP	TTC SWG621 (NEC)	Agreed to take this as a contribution against the stage 2 in Issy-les-Moulineaux	
		020	Proposed Work Item: CSE control of HLR SS Data	TTC SWG621 (NTT COMMUNICATIONWARE CORPORATION)	Agreed to take this as a contribution against the stage 2 in Issy-les-Moulineaux; TTC will also consider whether a CR against GSM 02.78 is required.	
		021	Proposed Work Item: Service triggering at Call Received state	TTC SWG621 (NTT DoCoMo)	Not already covered; however the recommended approach is to bring a proposed change to SA1, and at the same time to pursue in ITU-T the introduction of a TDP for mid-call at the point shown in this contribution.	
		023	Proposed Work Item: VHE (evolution points for CAMEL)	TTC SWG 6-6-1	Proposes a mixture of additions to CAMEL phase 3: some defined in stage 1 terms, some stage 2 & some stage 3. Parallel approach is justified to try to foreshorten the development timescale. Harald & others pushed for the proposals in this doc to be rolled into the main CAMEL work item, rather than run as a separate work item. Stanislav is also concerned that we shouldn't start work on the stage 2 & 3 issues before SA1 have sorted out the additions to the stage 1. Harald is concerned that we shouldn't spread the remit of this work item to include internetworking between G-UMTS and other IMT-2000 family members. Agreed to strike out the text at the end of x.3 which refers to the IMT-2000 family, as a first approach, and consider a separate proposal to cover internetworking. Stanislav opposes any approach other than having a CAMEL phase 3 stage 1. Mr Sugiyama believes that even considering the CAMEL phase 2 service drivers we could consider changes to the corresponding stage 2 & 3. However this should be covered by contributions in WG2 as we develop the CAMEL phase 3 stage 2 & 3.	
		041	Removal of Not Reachable DPs	TTC SWG621	This has already been done. The change will be in GSM 03.78 v6.3.0 (due to be produced by France Telecom).	
5.5	Out-of-band transcoder control	012	Out-of-band Transcoder Control	TTC SWG621 (NEC)	Ambitious timescale for preparation of report; has GSM 09.02 CR as annex. Grouped with 017 & 018 on bearer & teleservice negotiation; see discussion of 017.	
5.6	Pre-paging	014	Proposed Work Item: Pre-Paging for GSM R99	NEC Technologies (UK)	Again, this has been agreed by SMG3 & SMG12, & is believed to have been approved by SMG #28. Steffen H proposes that we should wait until we have the outcome of the feasibility report before we dive in and modify the specifications.	
		024	Proposed Work Item: Pre-Paging	NIPPON TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTING CO.,LTD.	This goes into more detail, with message flows. It also has rather unrealistic timescales for producing the outputs. TTC seem to be prejudging the issue, and wanting to rush into changing the specification before we have the feasibility report. Jeremy & I take the view that the impact spreads across both WGs, but Masami thinks it could/should be handled in one subgroup. Vinod Pandey says that pre-paging has been used in the US, and it opens up a whole load of tricky interactions; we need to investigate the stage 2 issues before we start on the protocol.
In addition, there will be an impact on the terminal; this has to be identified in the feasibility report.	
		026	CR to GSM 03.18 for pre-paging	NIPPON TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTING CO.,LTD.	Tabled for information 	
		027	CR to GSM 09.02 for pre-paging	NIPPON TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTING CO.,LTD.	Tabled for information	
5.7	GLR	015	Proposed Work Item: The Gateway Location Register	NEC Technologies (UK)	Believed to have been approved in SMG #28. Steffen H asks whether the WI is to do the preliminary study on the GLR, or to do the actual specification work. Jeremy raises concerns over how the network interworking would be handled for all the possible configurations. Masami reckons we ought to consider in the feasibility report what the impact would be of having the GLR as a mandatory network element vs having it as an optional network element. Harald points out that we have to go a step at a time: the report has to be prepared and analysed, then we have to decide whether to introduce the changes into the specification. Mark will put the draft table of contents on to the email exploder.	
		039	Proposed Work Item : GLR (Gateway Location Register)	Fujitsu et al	Expands on 15 by showing example message flows. Will be subsumed into the NEC WI.	
5.8	BS/TS negotiation	017	Proposed Work Item: Bearer Services and Teleservices negotiation	TTC SWG661	TTC say these Wis (in 017 & 018) are already covered by 22.05. Identified that for all 3 Wis (012, 017, 018) we need a significant enhancement to either ISUP or MAP. Accepted proposal to work on feasibility studies and produce report, with timescales as for GLR & pre-paging studies. Steffen H asks how we should involve WG1, bearing in mind their involvement in access signalling. Masami wants to start independently, and then try to co-ordinate later; Harald recommends that the issue should be raised in the CN plenary, to try to co-ordinate between WG1 and WG2. Jeremy points out that an early joint meeting would reduce the need for rework. Christian suggests that an initial proposal for the functional outline should be prepared here, and then discussed between WG1 & WG2. Harald suggests that this is an issue for a "technical plenary" of CN. Needs a discussion between CN2 & SA2 to clarify!! 	
		018	Proposed Work Item: Bearer Services and Teleservices modification during a call	TTC SWG661	See discussion on 017.	
5.9	Use of B-ISUP	019	Proposed Work Item: Call Associated Signaling (Application of B-ISDN User Part for the PLMN)	NEC NTT Communication-ware	Withdrawn	
5.11	CS/PS co-ordination	025	Proposed Work Item: Extension of MAP CS/PS co-ordination procedure	TTC SWG661	Withdrawn	
5.12	Authentication	029	Variation of authentication parameter length	TTC SWG6-6-1	I flagged up the need to raise this proposal in SA WG3 (security). Masami proposes to send an LS to SA3 to tell them we've looked at it, and want their opinion before we start work.	
		030	Variation of authentication parameter length: proposed solution	TTC SWG6-6-1	Tabled for info as background to 029	
		031	CR to GSM 09.02 on Variation of authentication parameter length	TTC SWG6-6-1	Tabled for info as background to 029	
5.13	QoS for packet services	032	QoS Control for asymmetric bearer for packet services.	TTC SWG6-6-1	Harald expresses concern that we shouldn't rush into the change for this item until the QoS discussion in SA2 has produced its output. Masami proposes LS to SA2 to kick them to define their output quickly, so we can do our work.	
5.14	Multiple calls	036	Maximum Call Number of Multiple call	TTC SWG6-6-1	Harald identifies the need to deal with this refinement of multi-call in the wider context of multi-call as a whole; Stanislav asks how forwarded, deflected and transferred calls affect the multiple call count. The first step is to get a decent stage 1 definition of multi-call! Masami proposes to include this in our shopping list of things to do, and prod for a clearer service definition. Jeremy proposes that we should concentrate on getting the multi-call service requirement settled, rather than concentrating on this particular detail. Harald supports; we should have inputs from SA1 & SA2 before we start on our more detailed work. Masami repeats our need to have service requirements no later than May if we're to have a chance of delivering our outputs in time.	
		037	Working Document on Maximum Call Number of Multiple Call	TTC SWG6-6-1		
		038	CR 09.02-A201 on Maximum Call Number of Multiple call	TTC SWG6-6-1		
6	Any other business					
6.1	Arrangements for elections	013	Guidance on procedures for election of Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen	3GPP secretariat		
		016	Procedure for election of TSG <xx> WG<x> Chairman & Vice Chairman	3GPP secretariat		
		042	Announcement of candidature of Ian Park for WG2 chairmanship	3GPP secretariat		
6.2	Other business					
7	Approval of output documents	033	Proposed terms of reference for TSG-CN-WG2	Co-convenor (Masami Yabusaki)	Withdrawn in favour of 034	
		034	Proposed terms of reference for TSG-CN-WG2	Co-convenor (Masami Yabusaki)	Revision of 033	
		044	LS to SA WG3 on variable length authentication	NTT		
		045	LS to SMG12 on UMTS simultaneous mode	Nortel		
		046	LS to SA1 on service requirements for multi-call	Steffen Habermann		
		047	LS to SA2 on QoS control for packet sessions	Harald Dettner		
8	Review of dates and hosts for future meetings					
	Document numbers allocated but document details not yet available