TSG Working Agreements
"Working Agreements" are tentative decisions reached by 3GPP groups in order to make progress on matters where consensus [1] cannot be reached. See the 3GPP Working Procedures, article 25. See document PCG20_04 (slides 4 & 5) for further background information.
To propose additions to this page: 3GPP Contact .
Only working agreements explicitly documented in meeting reports will be included. Where appropriate, reference may be made to a meeting contribution (TDoc) supporting the working agreement, or giving further details.
To challenge a working agreement, contact the chairman of the meeting where the challenge would be resolved. The challenge will normally result in a formal vote at the earliest possible meeting. See the 3GPP Working Procedures, articles 25 & 26.
Concordia discors : adversus solem ne loquitor.
| # | text | date of inclusion | meeting at which created | supporting TDoc | challenge-by date | challenge to be addressed at meeting | status |
| 39 | The SA6 Chairman declared during SA6#42-e meeting that the pCR S6-210730 (Service-based interfaces interaction within EDGEAPP) was approved as a working agreement. | 2021-03-11 | SA6#42-e | S6-210730 | 2021-04-05 | SA6#42BIS-e | Challenged |
| 38 | The RAN4 Chairman declared during RAN4#97-e meeting that the content of R4-2016850 was approved as a working agreement. | 2020-11-12 | RAN4#97-e | R4-2016850 | 2020-11-30 | RAN#90-e | Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed |
| 37 |
The TSG SA Chairman declared during TSG SA#89-e meeting that the content of SP-200870 was endorsed as a working agreement. |
2020-09-23 | SA#89-e | SP-200870 | 2020-12-02 | SA#90-e | Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed |
| 36 | The SA6 Chair declared during SA#39-e meeting that the pCRs (related to Application Context Relocation Scenarios) in S6-201679, S6-201680, S6-201681, S6-201635, and S6-201682 were approved as a working agreement. | 2020-09-15 | SA6#39-e | S6-201679 S6-201680 S6-201681 S6-201635 S6-201682 |
2020-10-05 | SA6#39 BIS-e | Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed |
| 35 | The CT1 Chairman declares during CT1#125e meeting that the Change Requests in C1-205249, C1-205183 and C1-205184 are agreed as a working agreement. | 2020-08-27 | CT1#125-e | C1-205249 C1-205183 C1-205184 |
2020-09-07 | CT#89-e | Challenge withdrawn |
| 34 | The TSG SA Chairman declared during TSG SA#88-e meeting that the Change Requests in SP-200549 and SP-200550 were approved as a working agreement. | 2020-07-06 | SA#88-e | SP-200549 SP-200550 | 2020-09-08 | SA#89-e | Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed |
| 33 | The SA6 Chairman declared during the SA6#34 meeting that the Rel-16 Change Request in TDoc S6-192217 be agreed as a working agreement due to objections from only 2 companies while 12 companies were in favour of the CR. The CR removes the ‘temporary re-group procedures’ from Rel-16 due to no progress on corresponding security solution. As a compromise, the procedures have been included in Rel-17 to allow for potential resolution during Rel-17 timeframe. | 2019-11-15 | SA6#34 | S6-192217 | 2019-12-02 | SA#86 | Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed |
| 32 | The CT6 Chairman declared during the CT6#94 meeting that the Change Request in TD C6-190279 was agreed as a working agreement. | 2019-06-28 | CT6#94 | C6-190279 | 2019-09-09 | CT#85 | Compromise solution achieved |
| 31 | The SA2 Chairman declared during the SA2#133 meeting that the Change Request in TD S2-1906569 was agreed as a working agreement. | 2019-05-21 | SA2#133 | S2-1906569 | 2019-05-29 | SA#84 | Challenged and overturned by vote. |
| 30 | The SA6 Chairman declared during the SA6#30 meeting that the Change Request in TDoc S6-190869, was agreed as a working agreement. | 2019-04-17 | SA6#30 | S6-190869 | 2019-05-13 | SA6#31 | Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed |
| 29 |
The following 3 CRs on "Capability for aperiodic CSI-RS triggering with different numerology between PDCCH and CSI-RS" were approved by RAN #83 with a working agreement: RP-190632 (38.214 REL-15), RP-190633 (38.331 REL-15), RP-190634 (38.306 for REL-15) due to sustained objection from 2 companies. |
2019-03-25 | RAN#83 | RP-190632 RP-190633 RP-190634 |
2019-05-27 | RAN#84 | Challenged and overturned by vote. |
| 28 |
The CT1 Chairman declared in CT1#115 that the Change Request in Tdoc C1-191571 was agreed as a working agreement. |
2019-03-04 | CT1#115 |
- |
2019-04-01 | C1-116 | Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed |
| 27 |
The Chairman declared in CT1#113 that the Change Request in Tdoc C1-188578 was agreed as a working agreement. |
2018-12-03 | CT1#113 | 2019-01-14 | CT1#114 | Sustained objection withdrawn thus implicitly confirmed | |
| 26 |
The Chairman declared in CT1#113 that the Change Request in Tdoc C1-188888 was agreed as a working agreement. |
2018-12-03 | CT1#113 | 2019-01-14 | CT1#114 | Sustained objection withdrawn thus implicitly confirmed | |
| 25 |
The Chairman has declared in RAN3#102 that the draft Change Request in TDoc R3-187266 was agreed as a working agreement. It will be reviewed by RAN2 and will become a formal CR. |
2018-11-20 | RAN3#102 | 2018-12-03 | RAN#82 | Compromise solution achieved | |
| 24 |
The Chair has declared in CT1#112 that the Change Request in Tdoc C1-185794 (or a further revision) will be agreed as a working agreement. An LS will be sent to SA2 for information, and if concerns are raised, the agreed / approved change will be reverted. |
2018-08-27 | CT1#112 | 2018-10-08 | CT1#112bis | Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed | |
| 23 |
"The Chair has declared in SA3#91-Bis that the Change Request in the tdoc S3-182010 will be agreed as a working agreement" |
2018-05-23 | SA3#91-Bis | 2018-06-06 | SA#80 | Compromise solution achieved See SP-180534. |
|
| 22 |
At SA1#81, the following Working Agreement is made: “Subject to Home MNO policy as well as its service and operational needs, a legacy USIM instead of a 5G USIM may be used to authenticate a user in a 5G system to get services according to her/his subscription, without introducing undue security risks.” |
2018-03-13 | SA1#81 | 2018-03-14 | SA#79 |
Sustained objection withdrawn thus implicitly confirmed |
|
| 21 |
RAN4 way forward on NR sync raster had a sustained opposition by a small minority preventing a consensus. The working agreement was made for the way forward in R4-1803438. |
2018-03-05 | RAN4#86 | 2018-04-09 | RAN4#86bis |
Challenged but confirmed by vote |
|
| 20 |
As outcome of study item FS_LTE_UDC, TSG RAN#77 discussed 2 solutions for UL data compression in LTE. A clear majority was in favour of the DEFLATE solution and a minority objected to it. So on 2017-09-13 a working agreement was made to approve the new WI RP-172076 for the DEFLATE solution. |
2017-09-14 | RAN#77 | 2017-12-11 | RAN#78 |
Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed |
|
| 19 |
RAN4 way forward on NR BS EVM had sustained opposition by a small minority preventing consensus. The working agreement was made for the way forward in R4-1706969 . |
2017-07-11 | RAN4-NR#2 | 2017-08-14 | R4-84 |
Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed |
|
| 18 |
Approve TS 22.261 CR0031R1 in CR Pack SP-170443. Send guidance to SA WG3 to provide guidance on alignment with this CR in LS (SP-170581). |
2017-06-13 | SP-76 | 2017-09-06 | SP#77 |
Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed |
|
| 17 |
CT1 has agreed that UEs supporting enhanced coverage are mandated to support restriction on use of enhanced coverage, see CR #2860 to TS 24.301 (and its companion CR #3062 to TS 24.008). |
2017-04-09 | C1-103 | C1-171925 C1-171643 |
2017-05-08 | C1-104 | Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed |
| 16 |
That both the new work items in RP-170732 and RP-170852 (plus attachment in RP-170836) are approved. |
2017-03-10 | RP-75 | - | 2017-05-29 | RP-76 | Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed |
| 15 |
CT1 has decided that an explicit indication in the SIB of support for "attach without PDN connectivity" by the network, will prevent the UE from having to discover availability of such a feature by using trial and error in Attach request and will facilitate handling when UE moves across tracking areas or changes PLMNs. |
2016-04-13 | C1-97 |
- |
2016-05-16 | C1-98 | Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed |
| 14 |
SA4 at its ad hoc teleconference 2016-03-10 agreed that draft TS 26.179 v0.2.0 (tdoc S4-AHT011, produced following the teleconference) was agreed to be converted to version 1.0.0 and sent to TSG SA#71 for information and approval. The agreement was supported by eighteen organizations. Two organizations sustained objection to the agreement. |
2016-03-10 | S4-MCPTT codecs and media handling |
S4-AHT011 |
2016-04-04 | S4-88 | Sustained objection withdrawn thus implicitly confirmed |
| 13 |
The 3GPP System shall provide a secure mechanism via the 3GPP network to remotely provision an IOT-device, that has not been pre-provisioned, with its 3GPP subscription credentials. |
2016-02-18 | S1-73 | 2016-02-22 | SP-71 | Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed | |
| 12 |
RAN4 way forward on LAA bands had sustained opposition by a small minority preventing a consensus. The working agreement was made for the way forward in R4-156785. The way forward is: |
2015-10-19 | R4-76b | 2015-11-09 | R4-77 |
Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed | |
| 11 |
RAN4 way forward on Band 28 as global band had sustained opposition by a small minority preventing a consensus. The working agreement was made for the way forward in R4-146724. RAN4 received an LS from CEPT (R4-143812) requesting to harmonise the out of band requirements for 700 MHz mobile terminals between Europe and other regions. Agreement was to delete NS_24 from Rel-12 and add the -42dBm/8MHz associated to NS_01 for 10MHZ E-UTRA carrier within 703-733MHz, Otherwise -25 dBm/8MHz apply. -42dBm/8MHz will be specified in Rel-11 version of TS36.101. CRs for Rel-11 and Rel-12 will be approved in RAN4-73. |
2014-10-15 | R4-72b | 2014-11-10 | R4-73 | Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed | |
| 10 |
RAN4 CR on Maximum allowed UL TX power for Band XXVI coexistence with Public Safety: CR 1041 (R4-144970) to TS 25.101 Rel-11, and CR 1042 (R4-144971) to 25.101 Rel-12, had sustained objection from Qualcomm. The topic had already been discussed at length in the previous RAN4 meetings, and the working assumption was made that these two CRs were agreed. The two CRs introduce UL power restrictions for single and dual carrier for certain uplink center frequencies for coexistence with Public Safety and Band 27 and they allow power averaging for the 6.25 kHz measurement bandwidth similar to requirements for protection of Public Safety in the 700 MHz band. |
2014-08-25 | R4-72 | 2014-09-02 | RP-65 | Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed | |
| 9 | Proposal 3: Take the average of the average of all companies' proposed figures and the 2nd least stringent figure. (this is in fact the average of figures coming out of Proposal 1 and 2) | 2014-06-06 | G1-62 | GP-140331 | 2014-08-19 |
G1-63 | Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed |
| 8 | Exception sheet for work item "Enhancement to FEC for MBMS" (EMM-EFEC, uid 530148) was agreed, with a formal objection by Broadcom Corporation. | 2012-11-15 | S4-71 | S4-121562 | 2012-12-03 | SP-58 | Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed |
| 7 | TR 45.860 CR0009r3 "Conclusion of SI Signal Precoding Enhancements for EGPRS2 DL (SPEED)" (Rel-11) was approved, with a formal objection by Nokia Siemens Networks. | 2012-02-05 | G1-53 | GP-120393 | 2012-05-07 | GP-54 | Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed |
| 6 | "The emission requirement for Band 26 shall be -53 dBm / 6.25 kHz." The OOBE limit for co-existence with narrow band systems in the 851-859 MHz range is the only remaining issue blocking the approval of the WI e850_UB-Core. The topic has been discussed for a long time without reaching consensus. A substantial majority of individual members are in favour of -53 dBm / 6.25 kHz emission requirement for Band 26 but there is sustained opposition preventing consensus on this value. |
2012-02-09 | R4-62 | R4-121040, R4-121041 | 2012-02-21 | RP-55 | Confirmed by vote at RP-55 |
| 5 | Three RAN4 CRs for band 3.5GHz (WI code RInImp8-UMTSLTE3500): CR1140 (R4-114395) to TS 25.133, CR838r1 (R4-114755) to TS 25.101, and CR908r1 (R4-114762) to TS 36.101, had sustained objection from Qualcomm. The Topic had already been discussed at length in the previous RAN4 meetings, and the working assumption was made that these three CRs were agreed defining the requirement for tolerance for Maximum output power for LTE and for maximum output power and reference sensitivity for UTRA. | 2011-08-29 | R4-60 | R4-114395, R4-114755, R4-114762 | 2011-09-06 | RP-53 | Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed |
| 4 | TDoc GP-101632 proposed working assumption on interference profiles for VAMOS uplink performance, from Nokia Siemens Networks, Telefon AB LM Ericsson, Vodafone Group, CMCC, was endorsed at the closing TSG GERAN#47 Plenary meeting. | 2010-09-06 | GP-47 | GP-101632 | 2010-11-15 | GP-48 | Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed |
|
3 |
At RAN #48, RAN4 CR0530r1 to TS 36.101 "E-UTRA;User Equipment (UE) radio transmission and reception" v9.3.0 in RP-100683 had one sustained objection against the modification in table 7.3.1-2 for the case E-UTRA band 20 (see TS 36.101 table 5.5-1, WI RInImp9-UMTSLTE800EU) for the 10MHz channel bandwidth. The objecting company proposed RP-100684 instead. The topic had already been discussed at length in the previous RAN4 meeting and there were strong market requirements in favour of a conclusion at RAN#48. As a working agreement the CR in RP-100683 was approved (to avoid delay in LTE UE implementation) for implementation after RAN#48. | 2010-06-04 | RP-48 | RP-100683 | 2010-09-07 | RP-49 |
Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed
which will be provided to RP-49 for approval.
|
|
2 |
CEN TC 278 WG 15 recommended to make the necessary changes to overcome the problem described in the LS from CEN to ETSI MSG forwarded to SA1 and SA4, i.e. to change the eCall initiation sequence, so that eCall equipped PSAPs only emit a SEND MSD message (in-band tone) in response to a valid incoming eCall INITIATION message from a vehicle eCall terminal (i.e. push mode) - the "In-Vehicle System" (IVS). Accordingly SA1 produced three CRs to TS 22.101 to be submitted to SA Plenary #45 for approval to clarify the service requirement, conditional on SA4 agreeing to include push mode operation. The CRs in question are: S1-093004 22.101 CR314 eCall mode of operation (Release 8), S1-093289 22.101 CR317 rev 1 Minimise delay to emergency voice calls (Release 8), and the "mirror CR" in S1-093290 22.101 CR315 rev 1 Minimise delay to emergency voice calls (Release 9). However concerns were raised at SA1 and later at SA4 about potential impacts of the changes proposed in S1-093289 and S1-093290. Those impacts are related to the situation where the push mode is facing some waiting / welcome messages on 112 lines. | 2009-08-24 | S4-55 | S4-090552 26.267 CR3r1 "Integration of IVS-initiated signalling option", S4-090473 26.268 CR7 "Integration of IVS-initiated signalling option" | 2009-09-14 | SP-45 |
Withdrawn
Challenged 2009-09-11 in SP-090558 Following discussion at SP-45 and approval of liaison SP09-0666 urging WGs S1, C1 and C4 to develop an end-to-end eCall signal, the challenge was withdrawn. |
| 1 | REQ-ANR-CON-003 Operator shall be able to set the default values for the constraints for allowing and prohibiting HOs for NRs newly created by the ANR function. REQ-ANR-CON-004 Operator shall be able to set the default behaviour for allowing and prohibiting X2 connection setup to eNBs parenting newly detected cell by the ANR function. | 2008-10-17 | S5-61 | S5-081945 | 2008-11-09 | S5-62 |
Withdrawn
Challenge in S5-081721. Proposed solution in S5-082442 Source: Vodafone. Discussion: The Vodafone proposal was approved by the group. The working agreement in S5-081945 was agreed to be withdrawn. |
Possible status values:
- Not yet challenged
- Challenged
- Challenged but confirmed by vote (or subsequent consensus)
- Challenged and overturned by vote (or subsequent consensus)
- Unchallenged by date limit thus implicitly confirmed
- Sustained objection withdrawn thus implicitly confirmed
- Commpromise solution achieved
This page maintained by 3GPPcontact@3gpp.org
[1] Consensus is defined as the lack of sustained opposition. A working agreement representing the majority view is typically arrived at if only a very small number of individual members sustain opposing views.
Page updates:
2016-04-19: Working agreementy status "withdrawn" clarified: now reads "Sustained objection withdrawn thus implicitly confirmed"
