Tdoc List
2016-08-23 09:02
Agenda | Topic | TDoc | Title | Source | Type | For | Avail | Treated | Decision | Wdrn | Replaced-by | Replaces |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Opening of the meeting (Monday, 9 a.m.) |   | ||||||||||
2 | Approval of the agenda | R6‑160001 | Draft Agenda | Convener (Nokia) | agenda | Approval | Yes |
YesNicklas JOHANSSON (Ericsson) volunteered to keep track of the RAN6 workplan in the future (see AI 9)
The convener also presented a draft schedule of the meeting for which no comments were raised.
| approved | No | ||
R6‑160004 | Void | ETSI MCC | discussion | discussion | No |
Yes
| withdrawn | Yes | ||||
3 | General matters |   | ||||||||||
3.1 | Matters related to organization and way of working of the group | R6‑160063 | TSG RAN WG6 meeting organization and way of working | convener (Nokia) | discussion | discussion | Yes |
Yesconclusion: GERAN #70 report will be reviewed by email over RAN6 reflector after RAN6 #1 to have a final report;
Qualcomm: RAN6 may not need 5 days in the future
conclusion: let's look at this again at the end of RAN6 #1
Qualcomm: probably enough to use one reflector, so no need for drafts reflector
conclusion: let's see now many documents we will see on the drafts reflector in the future, if not really used then was can change the process and use one reflector only
MCC: old reflectors will not be removed from the archive, just no longer be used
Ericsson: can we have an earlier deadline for Tdocs?
conclusion: Tdoc request and submission deadline will be 9pm CET (CEST in summer) on Fri one week before the meeting
| noted | No | ||
4 | Liaisons / reports from other groups / meetings | R6‑160055 | LS on CS/PS coordination in GERAN Shared Networks (R3-161501; to: SA2; cc: GERAN2 = RAN6; contact: Ericsson) | RAN3 | LS in | discussion | Yes |
Yespresented by Nicklas JOHANSSON (Ericsson)
convener: RAN3 is fine with the proposal from SA2 to apply same approach as suggested by GERAN; no comments
conclusion: no reply from RAN6
convener: GERAN #69 sent LSs to CT1 and SA3 where we are still wating for replies, GERAN #70 sent LSs to CT1 and CT4 as well also no response here so far; we will check what happened with them
| noted | No | ||
R6‑160064 | LS on Legacy Security Issues (S3-161224; to: RAN6, CT1; cc: CT6; contact: Qualcomm) | SA3 | LS in | discussion | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||||
5 | Work related to Rel-13 or earlier features |   | ||||||||||
5.1 | eDRX_GSM | R6‑160023 | Clarification of CCCH_GROUP Determination | Ericsson Inc. | CR | Decision | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||
R6‑160024 | Clarification of PEO codepoint usage | Ericsson Inc. | CR | Decision | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||||
R6‑160025 | Clarification of PEO codepoint usage | Ericsson Inc. | CR | Decision | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||||
5.2 | CIoT_EC_GSM |   | ||||||||||
5.2.1 | Radio aspects | R6‑160010 | Miscellaneous corrections for EC-GSM-IoT | Ericsson LM | CR | Decision | Yes |
Yespresented by Marten SUNDBERG (Ericsson)
MCC: -Core should be used
conclusion: no further comments so only WI code to be corrected
| revised | No | R6‑160065 | |
R6‑160065 | Miscellaneous corrections for EC-GSM-IoT | Ericsson LM | CR | Decision | No |
No
| reserved | No | R6‑160010 | |||
R6‑160026 | Miscellaneous corrections for EC-GSM-IoT | Ericsson LM | CR | Approval | Yes |
Yespresented by Marten SUNDBERG (Ericsson)
Ericsson: CR is for 45.003 as in the Tdoc request but it is wrong here on the CR cover
Nokia: diagramms pretend that blocks are happening multiple times but some happen actually just once; similar block diagram could be added for RACH;
Ericsson: either figures or text needs correction (modifying text looked more complex) but also other specs may be affected;
Nokia: blind physical layer transmission? to be clarified
Ericsson: could be clarified in the figure
| revised | No | R6‑160066 | |||
R6‑160066 | Miscellaneous corrections for EC-GSM-IoT | Ericsson LM | CR | Approval | No |
No
| reserved | No | R6‑160026 | |||
R6‑160009 | Miscellaneous corrections for EC-GSM-IoT | Ericsson LM | CR | Decision | Yes |
Yespresented by Marten SUNDBERG (Ericsson)
MCC: -Core to be used
convener: first change to eDRX?
MCC: then better have both WI codes listed as otherwise this is not visible in the CR database
| revised | No | R6‑160067 | |||
R6‑160067 | Miscellaneous corrections for EC-GSM-IoT | Ericsson LM | CR | Decision | No |
No
| reserved | No | R6‑160009 | |||
R6‑160050 | Corrections to EC-GSM-IoT | Nokia Networks | CR | Decision | Yes |
Yespresented by Srinivasan SELVAGANAPATHY (Nokia)
Ericsson: thanks for the spec review, 6th modification: phase shift of pi is not really correct, better to add this to 45.004 where the modulation is and have an informative note; SI reading as quickly as possible after change mark would be useful
Nokia: fine to have informative note in 45.004;
Ericsson: there are 2 possible cases where you acquire EC-SI
after offline discussion: Nokia: mobile behaviour should be clarified in 5
convener: here we look more at network aspect, should we have a CR to 44.018 reference to 45.002 for mobile aspect?
Ericsson: supports this or even better: we can move the clarification to 44.018
conclusion: 6th change will be removed, 6th change will be moved to 45.004 (i.e. merged into R6-160072), 6.3.3.4 v) will be removed from this CR and corresponding text will be added in a CR to 44.018 (i.e. merged into R6-160060), -Core in WI code to be added
| revised | No | R6‑160068 | |||
R6‑160068 | Corrections to EC-GSM-IoT | Nokia Networks | CR | Decision | No |
No
| reserved | No | R6‑160050 | |||
R6‑160030 | Miscellaneous corrections for EC-GSM-IoT | Ericsson LM | CR | Approval | Yes |
Yespresented by Marten SUNDBERG (Ericsson)
Nokia: 1st modification: include serving cell, bottom of 5th modication needs a clarification; has also CR to 6.9.4: clarification from our CR can be added here;
conclusion: 1st, 3rd and 5th modification need a revision
| revised | No | R6‑160069 | |||
R6‑160069 | Miscellaneous corrections for EC-GSM-IoT | Ericsson LM | CR | Approval | No |
Noincludes change of section 6.9.4 of R6-160052
| reserved | No | R6‑160030 | |||
R6‑160052 | Corrections to EC-GSM-IoT | Nokia Networks | CR | Decision | Yes |
Yespresented by Srinivasan SELVAGANAPATHY (Nokia)
Ericsson: 6.9.4: signal levels should not be removed?
Nokia: correct; note: complete 6.9.4 change will be merged into R6-160069
Ericsson: 6.10.3: informative note: not fully understood what is meant by "matching", is not bullet-proof and name of parameter is not correct
Nokia: would clarify/reword the note
Ericsson: 7th modification: change is not correct as it is now
Nokia: agrees that this should be conditional, so some rewording needed
Ericsson: 8th modification: 2nd line in table: RCC missing, not just NCC+BCC
Nokia: will add RCC
| revised | No | R6‑160070 | |||
R6‑160070 | Corrections to EC-GSM-IoT | Nokia Networks | CR | Decision | No |
No
| reserved | No | R6‑160052 | |||
R6‑160049 | Corrections to EC-GSM-IoT | Nokia Networks | CR | Decision | Yes |
Yespresented by Srinivasan SELVAGANAPATHY (Nokia)
Ericsson: numbering of synchronisation sequences is a bit strange and should be clarified
Nokia: can do this
| revised | No | R6‑160071 | |||
R6‑160071 | Corrections to EC-GSM-IoT | Nokia Networks | CR | Decision | No |
No
| reserved | No | R6‑160049 | |||
R6‑160051 | Corrections to EC-GSM-IoT | Nokia Networks | CR | Decision | Yes |
Yespresented by Srinivasan SELVAGANAPATHY (Nokia)
| revised | No | R6‑160072 | |||
R6‑160072 | Corrections to EC-GSM-IoT | Nokia Networks | CR | Decision | No |
Nowill include 6th change of R6-160050
| reserved | No | R6‑160051 | |||
R6‑160008 | Miscellaneous corrections for EC-GSM-IoT | Ericsson LM | CR | Decision | Yes |
Yespresented by Marten SUNDBERG (Ericsson)
Ericsson: Nokia has a CR on same TS in R6-160047
convener: text in front of the table is unclear for EC operation
Ericsson: Sentence in front of table 6.2-4 can be removed, can be covered in Nokia CR
conclusion: modfication for the sentence above table 6.2-4 will be removed as covered in R6-160074
| revised | No | R6‑160073 | |||
R6‑160073 | Miscellaneous corrections for EC-GSM-IoT | Ericsson LM | CR | Decision | No |
No
| reserved | No | R6‑160008 | |||
R6‑160047 | Corrections to EC-GSM-IoT | Nokia Networks | CR | Decision | Yes |
Yesmoved from AI 5.2.2 to AI 5.2.1
presented by Srinivasan SELVAGANAPATHY (Nokia)
convener: would suggest to move 7th modification in Ericsson's CR (revision of R6-160008)
Ericsson: prefers to remove the sentence before R6-160008 before table 6.2-4
conclusion: only WI code to be corrected
| revised | No | R6‑160074 | |||
R6‑160074 | Corrections to EC-GSM-IoT | Nokia Networks | CR | Decision | No |
No
| reserved | No | R6‑160047 | |||
R6‑160053 | Corrections to EC-GSM-IoT | Nokia Networks | CR | Decision | Yes |
Yespresented by Srinivasan SELVAGANAPATHY (Nokia)
Ericsson: section 4: " was removed, should not be the case
Ericsson: not sure as T3 = T3", will check offline
conclusion: change to remove " is ok
Ericsson: 6.11.1 2nd bullet: should be spelled out
Nokia: bullet was just moved
Ericsson: "EC packet control acknowledgement" is better than "blind physical layer transmissions"
convener: CC1 case only in first bullet
Ericsson: there is no case where CC1 is using blind physical layer transmission, so remove CC1 from first bullet
conclusion: will replace 4 times "in CC1 not using blind physical layer transmissions" into "not using blind physical layer transmissions (CC1)"
Ericsson: to 6.4, 3rd paragraph: whole paragraph needs to be updated to get it correct
convener: support level does not mean it has to use integral timeslot level
conclusion: changes of 2nd and 3rd paragraph planned and to be aligned with 5.7
| revised | No | R6‑160075 | |||
R6‑160075 | Corrections to EC-GSM-IoT | Nokia Networks | CR | Decision | No |
No
| reserved | No | R6‑160053 | |||
5.2.2 | Performance aspects | R6‑160002 | CR 45.005 - EC-GSM-IoT UE Rx performance requirements | MediaTek Inc. | CR | Approval | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||
R6‑160013 | Incremental redundancy requirement for EC-GSM-IoT | Ericsson LM | discussion | Discussion | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||||
R6‑160014 | Incremental redundancy requirement for EC-GSM-IoT | Ericsson LM | CR | Decision | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||||
R6‑160027 | Normalized coherency error requirements for EC-GSM-IoT MS | Ericsson LM | discussion | Discussion | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||||
R6‑160028 | Normalized coherency error requirements for EC-GSM-IoT MS | Ericsson LM | CR | Approval | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||||
R6‑160015 | BTS interference performance requirements for EC-GSM-IoT | Ericsson LM, Nokia | CR | Decision | No |
No
| reserved | No | ||||
R6‑160016 | BTS sensitivity performance requirements for EC-GSM-IoT | Ericsson LM, Nokia | CR | Decision | No |
No
| reserved | No | ||||
R6‑160029 | BTS sensitivity performance requirements for Overlaid CDMA | Ericsson LM | CR | Approval | No |
No
| reserved | No | ||||
R6‑160048 | Corrections to EC-GSM-IoT | Nokia Networks | CR | Decision | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||||
5.2.3 | Protocol aspects | R6‑160019 | 44.014 Miscellaneous EC-GSM-IoT Changes | Ericsson Inc. | CR | Decision | Yes |
Yesmoved from AI 5.2 to AI 5.2.3; presented by John DIACHINA (Ericsson);
Nokia: there can be also gaps
Ericsson: we could drop the "consecutive"
Nokia: consequences if not approved has a typo
Ericsson: can be fixed
convener: source to TSG should be R6
44.014 as Core or Perf spec?
Ericsson: is more related to mobile conformance testing
convener: agrees there are no Perf. figures, we can keep it under Core part
| revised | No | R6‑160056 | |
R6‑160056 | 44.014 Miscellaneous EC-GSM-IoT Changes | Ericsson Inc. | CR | Decision | No |
No
| reserved | No | R6‑160019 | |||
R6‑160020 | Miscellaneous EC-GSM-IoT Changes | Ericsson Inc. | CR | Decision | Yes |
Yesmoved from AI 5.2 to AI 5.2.3; presented by John DIACHINA (Ericsson)
MCC: should say -Core in WI code and instead of R6.2 use R6
Ericsson: instead of PG1 it should have PG with superscript 1 but the formatting change is not visible
convener: 3.3.1.2: text should be in italics or in primes?
Ericsson: tried to follow 24.008 but can double-check
convener: remove one "to", should say just "is set to" (problem occurs in multiple places)
Nokia: 3.5.1a.1: "last reported" correct? means last reported to core network or expected DL coverage class?
Ericsson: last reported in UL unit data
Nokia: "last reported to core network" would be clear but not sure whether core network is intended here; or also possible "last selected"
convener: what is the ambiguity that we see here?
Ericsson: BSS may overwrite what MS considered and then "last reported" may not be so clear/relevant
Qualcomm: thinks that sentence is ok, MS can not do anything if BSS does something else
Ericsson: "last reported in a system access" would probably be better
after offline discussion: Ericsson: we will clarify that "last reported" is related to what MS reports (i,e EC-packet channel request message)
Nokia: "selected DL coverage class"
Ericsson: but network may assign something else than what mobile selects
Nokia: is "selected" the final one?
Ericsson: yes
| revised | No | R6‑160057 | |||
R6‑160057 | Miscellaneous EC-GSM-IoT Changes | Ericsson Inc. | CR | Decision | No |
No
| reserved | No | R6‑160020 | |||
R6‑160021 | Miscellaneous EC-GSM-IoT Changes | Ericsson Inc. | CR | Decision | Yes |
Yesmoved from AI 5.2 to AI 5.2.3; presented by John DIACHINA (Ericsson)
convener: -Core missing in WI code, R6.2 => R6, some spaces missing in CR text
Qualcomm: 2nd sentence confusing: transmission in DL?
Ericsson: yes, as we talk about DL coverage class; but fine to rephrase
Qualcomm: needs to be corrected in 2 places
| revised | No | R6‑160058 | |||
R6‑160058 | Miscellaneous EC-GSM-IoT Changes | Ericsson Inc. | CR | Decision | No |
No
| reserved | No | R6‑160021 | |||
R6‑160022 | Miscellaneous EC-GSM-IoT Changes | Ericsson Inc. | CR | Decision | Yes |
Yesmoved from AI 5.2 to AI 5.2.3; presented by John DIACHINA (Ericsson)
convener: -Core missing in WI code, R6.2 => R6
Nokia: cat.D?
MCC: please make sure the change is visible
| revised | No | R6‑160059 | |||
R6‑160059 | Miscellaneous EC-GSM-IoT Changes | Ericsson Inc. | CR | Decision | No |
No
| reserved | No | R6‑160022 | |||
R6‑160003 | Updates of the naming convention from EC-EGPRS to EC-GSM-IoT | CATR | CR | Yes |
Yespresented by Yuan DONG (CATR)
Ericsson: this CR is completely included in R6-160020
conclusion: CR was merged into R6-160020
| merged | No | |||||
R6‑160037 | Miscellaneous corrections to EC-GSM-IoT | Nokia Networks | CR | Decision | Yes |
Yespresented by Deepak PRABHU KANLUR (Nokia)
Ericsson: changes to table Table 3.5.1a.1 not needed as covered in R6-160020;
Nokia: ok, will be removed
convener: use WI code -Core
| revised | No | R6‑160060 | |||
R6‑160060 | Miscellaneous corrections to EC-GSM-IoT | Nokia Networks | CR | Decision | No |
Nowill also include a change from R6-160050
| reserved | No | R6‑160037 | |||
R6‑160038 | Miscellaneous corrections to EC-GSM-IoT | Nokia Networks | CR | Decision | Yes |
Yespresented by Deepak PRABHU KANLUR (Nokia)
convener: use WI code -Core
Ericsson: 2nd sentence in defintion: should better say "EC-TBF uses"; TB-flow identity: under5.2.2 better remove "concurrently"; table change unclear
Nokia: fine with definition change; agrees to remove "concurrently" but we talk about one mobile
convener: agrees that for same mobile "concurrent" is unclear
Qualcomm: same value possible for different mobiles but only one will react; so "concurrent" is needed;
Ericsson: we could add one additional sentence: "EC-devices do not support concurrent TBFs"
convener: we do not need to have (E)GPRS and EC-GSM-IoT in the same sentence, i.e. we could have an extra sentence for EC-GSM-IoT
Qualcomm: or just clarify that last part of sentence is different for EC-GSM-IoT
| revised | No | R6‑160061 | |||
R6‑160061 | Miscellaneous corrections to EC-GSM-IoT | Nokia Networks | CR | Decision | No |
No
| reserved | No | R6‑160038 | |||
R6‑160039 | Miscellaneous corrections to EC-GSM-IoT | Nokia Networks | CR | Decision | Yes |
Yespresented by Deepak PRABHU KANLUR (Nokia)
Ericsson: maybe better split 2nd bullet in 6.2 into 2 bullets; 7.1a.1 & 7.1a.3 c change: clear from the title so not really needed;
Qualcomm: 6.2: change linked to UL TBF mode
convener: for 2nd change in 7.1a.1 we wanted to clarify this
Ericsson: worried to that addtiional text can cause additional confusion
conclusion: first change will be modified, changes in 7.1a.1 & 7.1a.3 not needed
| revised | No | R6‑160062 | |||
R6‑160062 | Miscellaneous corrections to EC-GSM-IoT | Nokia Networks | CR | Decision | No |
No
| reserved | No | R6‑160039 | |||
R6‑160040 | Uplink Transmission Opportunities indicated in FUA | Nokia Networks | discussion | discussion | Yes |
Yespresented by Deepak PRABHU KANLUR (Nokia)
proposal: to agree the accompanying CR to 44.018 [R6-160041] in order to increase Start First UL Data Block, indicating transmission opportunities, to 6 bits, else there are chances that some UL opportunities remain unused and hence transmission efficiency being degraded
Ericsson: nothing precluded, does not mean blocks cannot be used because initially they are not used; we should not eat up more bits (than 4 bits); 300ms/600ms/900ms scheduling distance in the future enough
Nokia: did not get what's the problem with 2 bits additional;
Ericsson: 80 bits of 88 will be used, so 8 bits left to use which is not much; if we use 6 bits it would restrict the scheduling
Nokia: we are just highlighting that a few UL ooportunities may not be used
convener: initial calls are occuring, solvable by network by different scheduling; scheduling of subsequent blocks an issue; 6 bits would allow already allocating for further blocks; 300ms/600ms/900ms latency sufficient?
CC3 and CC4 will miss even further transmission opportunities than indicated in the Tdoc for CC2?
Ericsson: for CC2/CC3/CC4 we have 12 bits to play with, so adding 1 bit more may be enough (i.e. 5 bits instead of 6 bits);
Ericsson: still not sure what we try to solve; just intial transmission affected; not convinced there is a real problem in reality;
convener: so are we ok with the current situation or is there agreement that we should improve it?
Nokia: would be ok with an extra 1 bit as Ericsson indicated
Ericsson: wasn't a proposal from us to go for 5 bits but we would be safe with this 1 extra bit
Ericsson: we do not want to waste network capacity, but this is not the case
convener: if number of scheduled blocks for UL would be affected by going from 4 to 5 bits, this would be a clear drawback but it seems we are not sure about this;
Ericsson: maybe Nokia could analyze the consequences of going from 4 to 5 bits?
convener: since the feature is completed, essential corrections are considered only, so far not clear that the change is essential (as network may be able solve it); but let's still have a short look at CR R6-160041
| noted | No | ||||
R6‑160041 | Start First UL data Block coding bit | Nokia Networks | CR | Decision | Yes |
Yespresented by Deepak PRABHU KANLUR (Nokia)
convener: if Nokia can bring more justification for this change then we can come back to it otherwise the CR is postponed or rejected
| postponed | No | ||||
5.3 | CSPS_Coord_GERAN | R6‑160007 | Correction to CSPS coordination in shared networks | Ericsson LM | CR | Agreement | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||
5.4 | Any other documents related to Rel-13 or earlier features |   | ||||||||||
6 | Work related to Rel-14 |   | ||||||||||
6.1 | Positioning enhancements for GERAN (work item ePOS_GERAN) | R6‑160006 | Multilateration Energy Consumption Analysis | Ericsson LM | discussion | Discussion | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||
R6‑160018 | Multilateration Signaling Procedures | Ericsson Inc. | discussion | Discussion | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||||
R6‑160034 | Radio Interface Enhancements for TA based multilateration | Nokia Networks | discussion | Discussion | Yes |
Yes
| revised | No | R6‑160054 | |||
R6‑160054 | Radio Interface Enhancements for TA based multilateration | Nokia Networks | discussion | Discussion | No |
No
| reserved | No | R6‑160034 | |||
R6‑160035 | Energy efficient hybrid TA/OTD multilateration for neighbour cells in extended coverage | Nokia Networks | discussion | Discussion | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||||
R6‑160036 | Energy Consumption Analysis of Radio Interface Procedures for Positioning Enhancements | Nokia Networks | discussion | Discussion | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||||
6.1.1 | Radio aspects |   | ||||||||||
6.1.2 | Performance aspects | R6‑160011 | Simulations for positioning enhancements – Assumptions | Ericsson LM | discussion | Discussion | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||
R6‑160012 | System level simulations for positioning enhancements – Methods and Results | Ericsson LM | discussion | Discussion | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||||
6.1.3 | Protocol aspects |   | ||||||||||
6.2 | Dedicated core networks for GERAN (work item DECOR-GERAN) | R6‑160017 | DECOR - Way forward | Ericsson Inc. | discussion | Discussion | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||
R6‑160005 | Introduction of Dedicated Core Networks in GERAN | Ericsson LM | CR | Agreement | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||||
6.3 | Small technical enhancements and improvements (work item TEI) |   | ||||||||||
6.4 | Downlink MIMO for GERAN (study item DOMIMO) | R6‑160042 | pCR 45.871 Downlink MIMO – Mode and Link Adaptation | Nokia Networks | pCR | Decision | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||
R6‑160043 | pCR 45.871 Downlink MIMO – Signalling | Nokia Networks | pCR | Decision | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||||
R6‑160044 | Compatibility Analysis of Downlink MIMO for GERAN | Nokia Networks | discussion | discussion | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||||
R6‑160045 | pCR 45.871 Downlink MIMO – Compatibility Analysis | Nokia Networks | pCR | Decision | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||||
R6‑160046 | pCR 45.871 Downlink MIMO – Conclusion | Nokia Networks | pCR | Decision | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||||
6.5 | Any other Rel-14 documents | R6‑160031 | Alternative mappings for EC-GSM-IoT higher coverage classes | Nokia Networks | discussion | Discussion | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||
R6‑160032 | EC-GSM-IoT New Channel Formats for Short Packets with NIDD CN | Nokia Networks | discussion | Discussion | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||||
R6‑160033 | New WID on Radio Interface Enhancements for EC-GSM-IoT | Nokia Networks | WID new | Agreement | Yes |
No
| available | No | ||||
7 | Any other technical work |   | ||||||||||
8 | Liaison and output to other groups |   | ||||||||||
9 | Revision of the work plan |   | ||||||||||
10 | Future meetings |   | ||||||||||
11 | Any other business |   | ||||||||||
12 | Close of the meeting (no later than Friday, 5.30 p.m.) |   |