Automatic email summary, 2026-01-24 00:50:20.159800
68 messages processed from email
==================


S3-260001

<begin CC1>
Mike P presents
E//: coversheet as CR, or should it be living document, should be cat F
T-Mo: ok
Vicechair: cat F, purpose of meeting is pre R20, so needs to be CR
Oppo: update also revision to 1
-> revise
<end CC1>

<begin CC2>
-r2 available
template open
<end CC2>

TMo: As there were no other comments for the document, I declare revision S3-260001-r03 as agreed.
I reserved a new document number for this contribution, and its new number is S3-260018.




S3-260002

<begin CC1>
Stavros presents
Nokia: also upstate JSON
E//: trying to remove "procedure and execution steps" heading, otherwise ok, also Huawei updates template
Nokia: in  GSMA NESAS the template has this heading
QC: clauses affected need to fixed in any way
E//: to 4.2.2.9.1: reference K.2.10 does not include this threat, either new threat needs to be inlcuded, or different reference
Oppo: add reference number
Nokia: check which clause is referenced to
E//: has a CR to 33.926 could follow similar approach
-> revise
<end CC1>

[Nokia]: Is triggering the email discussion on the Template discussion and the Threat Reference to TR 33.926; is providing initial info and feedback;
[Ericsson]: Few editorial changes. Revision r2<https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/WG3_Security/TSGS3_125AdHoc-e/Inbox/Drafts/draft_S3-260002-r2%20Update%20to%20AMF%20SCAS%20living%20doc%20according%20to%20NESASG%20feedback.docx> is uploaded to drafts folder.
[Ericsson]: Revision r4 is uploaded to drafts folder.
[Nokia]: we have agreed to keep this bullet with text ‘procedure and execution steps’; basically, we agreed to be here a bit flexible;
<begin CC2>
-r4 available
template open
<end CC2>

[Nokia]: document is noted
problems finding <Minutes> or </Minutes> in message from "lihe (A)" <000004e79de16274-dmarc-request@LIST.ETSI.ORG>
[Notes]: document is noted; modifications have been endorsed and can be merged into the living CR



S3-260003

<begin CC1>
Stawros presents
remove duplicate and, cat F
E//: is this to be converted to pCR
vicechair: title needs to be adapted accordingly
Huawei: change chould be in R20, not impact R19 anymore, changes are against rel 19, but make it R20 pCR
Mitre: there is no living doc for 516 at the moment
Huawei: correct,
TMo: procedure issue, easier for tracking under working item code it is
Vicechair: agenda is limited to pre R19
Chair: R20 can be pre-agreed, but then can be agreed in Goa very quickly
-> continue on email
<end CC1>

[Nokia]: is triggering the discussion on the applicability of Release; is providing information and feedback;
[Ericsson]: r1 looks ok.
<begin CC2>
-r2 available
no template issue
<end CC2>




S3-260004

<begin CC1>
Stawros presents
Huawei: content ok, but should be in R20
-> continue on email
<end CC1>

<begin CC2>
-r2 available
no template issue
<end CC2>

[Nokia]: document is noted
[Notes]: document is noted; modifications have been endorsed and can be merged into the living CR



S3-260005

<begin CC1>
Stawros presents
same as 0003/0004
-> continue on email
<end CC1>

<begin CC2>
-r2 available
no template issue
<end CC2>

[Nokia]: document is noted
[Notes]: document is noted; modifications have been endorsed and can be merged into the living CR



S3-260006

<begin CC1>
Stawros presents
Huawei: in this meeting mainly on content, merge into living CR, can be submitted to Goa meeting
E//: 4.2.5: threat reference has been updated, which specific threat under 5.3 is applicable
Oppo: is SCAS in scope for Goa?
Chair: yes
E//: 4.2.3.5.1: reference to industry best practice, would there be something available
Nokia: this format has been used before
Mitre: ensuring sufficient random identifiers could be applicable
<end CC1>

<begin CC2>
-r2 available
no template issue
Huawei: move everything to R20
Nokia: need to make decision
<end CC2>




S3-260007

<begin CC2>
-r2 available
no template issue
<end CC2>




S3-260008

problems finding <Minutes> or </Minutes> in message from Markus Hanhisalo <000001fda333f410-dmarc-request@LIST.ETSI.ORG>
[BSI (DE)] : 4.2.2.3 baseline format missing
4.2.2.3 “Requirement Reference” may produce changes on changes
4.2.2.3 “Requirement Reference” we prefer TS 33.501, clause 13.2.2.4.3 
4.2.2.5, 4.2.2.9, 4.2.2.10 see no changes
[Nokia]: comments accepted, basically, except the last one which says there is no modification; modifications are not shown by cb
[Nokia]: is providing details on the missing cb
[BSI (DE)]: Provided r3, editorial/formatting of 1st change
<begin CC2>
-r4
no template issue
BSI: formatting issue in first change. bullet point in wrong format -> format B1
<end CC2>

[Nokia]: document is noted
[Notes]: document is noted; modifications have been endorsed and can be merged into the living CR



S3-260010

<begin CC2>
- no changes
<end CC2>

[Ericsson]:There were no comments for S3-260010. For that reason S3-260010 is endorsed.



S3-260011

[Ericsson]: Uploaded r2<https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/WG3_Security/TSGS3_125AdHoc-e/Inbox/Drafts/draft_S3-260011-r2%20Corrections%20to%20TR%2033926.docx>.
<begin CC2>
-r2 available
<end CC2>

[Ericsson]:S3-260011-r2<https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/WG3_Security/TSGS3_125AdHoc-e/Inbox/Drafts/draft_S3-260011-r2%20Corrections%20to%20TR%2033926.docx> is revised to S3-260025 and it is endorsed.



S3-260012

[NTT DOCOMO]: clarification required before acceptance
[ZTE]: Provide clarifications and r1
[BSI (DE)] : Agreeing with NTT Docomo, prohibition of autostart shall be minimum requirement
[BSI (DE)] : Providing r2 as minimum agreeable baseline
[NTT DOCOMO]: still not ok
[NTT DOCOMO]: r2 not ok, revision required: if the test case is split, 
we should do this in one document.
[MITRE]: not fine and provides comments
[BSI (DE)]: Provided r3 following suggestions from MITRE and DOCOMO
<begin CC2>
-r3
ZTE: can be noted
<end CC2>

[ZTE]: Propose to note



S3-260013

[BSI (DE)] : 6th (6.2.2.1.6) and 7th (6.2.2.1.7) change contain no changes
[Ericsson]: Few editorial comments. Revision r2<https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/WG3_Security/TSGS3_125AdHoc-e/Inbox/Drafts/draft_S3-260013-r2%20-%20NESAS%20based%20changes%20to%20TS%2033.523.doc> is uploaded to drafts folder.
[Huawei]: Reply.
<begin CC2>
-r2 available
Huawei: comments on black box can be removed
<end CC2>

[Huawei]: Provide r3.
[BSI (DE)]: OK with r3, provided optional r4 with minor editorial change
[huawei]: fine with r4.
[Huawei]: r4 is approved, and it is revised to S3-260026.So, S3-260026 is approved.



S3-260014

<begin CC1>
Markus presents
Huawei: keep the heading procedure and execution steps
Mitre: good to have extra rows, but keep procedure and execution steps
Nokia: agree, was like that in all the SCASs, so not delete procedure and execution steps, keep preconditions
Nokia: technically nothing is added, in 117, everywhere there is procedure and execution steps, otherwise we have to open everything, not pursue
TMo: all SCAS already have this, what is the big concern
E//: the aim is to bring inline that the test cases already are written like that. No updates are required, just avoid one sentence and execution steps.
Huawei: support as proposed by David, align this with how it is used in majority of test cases.
-> discussion continues
<end CC1>

[Ericsson]: Information how “Procedure and execution steps” clause is used in SCAS’s.
problems finding <Minutes> or </Minutes> in message from "Parsel, Mike" <00000813c1830b31-dmarc-request@LIST.ETSI.ORG>
<begin CC2>
discussion on template
BSI: no strong opinion, heading procedure and execution steps redundant
Nokia: align with what scases have, so pre-condition / execution steps
QC: keep procedure and execuation steps, say it is optional heading, keep new
E//: prefer to stay without Procedure and execution steps
DCM: say this heading is deprecated, then update SCAS as they go along
E//: prefer to keep the original submission, and update as we update the SCASes
QC: ok with deprecated, keeps the procedure the same, doesn't force updates of the specs
TMo: ok with deprecated, 515 leaves out the word steps
Nokia: ok to fix this
->revision
<end CC2>

[Ericsson]: Revision r1<https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/WG3_Security/TSGS3_125AdHoc-e/Inbox/Drafts/draft_S3-260014-r1%20Correction%20to%2033916.docx> is uploaded to drafts folder.
[NTT DOCOMO]: suggests wording update
[Ericsson]: wording updated and r2<https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/WG3_Security/TSGS3_125AdHoc-e/Inbox/Drafts/draft_S3-260014-r2%20Correction%20to%2033916.docx> is uploaded to drafts folder.
[Ericsson]: revision r2 is agreed.



discussion without tdoc number
<begin CC1>
discussion on template for all documents in S3-260014
discussion on procedure "pCR and living document" vs CR in email thread on document S3-260002
offline call at UTC 13:00 on Tuesday
<end CC1>

<begin CC2>
r19 vs r20
Huawei: r20, rapporteur would include the agreed content into the draft CRs
Nokia: why not close the documents in this meeting? what is the benefit of waiting
Huawei: if r19 is implemented, the baseline for r20 needs to be implementation
Nokia: then pCR would have been better
TMo: not all of these CRs are against living documents
Huawei: almost all
TMo: 515 doesn't have a living document
E//: agree as CR those that don't have a living document.
Oppo: what is target date for conversion to CRs
Huawei: any time this year, closing time Q3
Oppo: then no need to convert to CR by Goa meeting
Rajvel: way forward to create R19 CR or pCR from this meeting
Oppo: the CRs were against R20
TMo: specs with no further changes in R19
VC: question to GSMA/BSI: do the changes need to be in R19
Nokia: as early as possible from GSMA perspective
BSI: similar opinion, suggest proposal from TMo
VC: CRs against documents without living doc, pCRs against living docs, endorse and then block approve
Rajvel: endorse, no need for living document, rapporteur can do it
<end CC2>

admin email by