3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #130         	                          R2-2503442
St. Julians, Malta, May 19th – 23rd, 2025
Agenda Item:	8.0
Source:	Xiaomi
Title:	Discussion on R19 ASN.1 review
Document for:	Discussion and Decision

Conclusion
Observation 1: If ASN.1 review is still based on published TS 38.331 specification from MCC after plenary, RAN2 will only have 1 week (or 2 days for the worst case) for 1st round ASN.1 review, which is impossible for companies to identify and submit RIL issues for further discussion. 
Observation 2: If temporary RRC specification is considered, RAN2 can start ASN.1 review early and have more than 3 weeks for 1st round ASN.1 review. This gives RAN2 sufficient time to make sure a high-quality 1st round ASN.1 review, where companies can have a comprehensive review and RIL issue identification.
Observation 3: RAN2 already have two examples of temporary specification generated by RAN2 specification rapporteur: 1) LTE RRC specification 2) NR UE capability specification (38.306 and 38.331 section 6.3.3). 
Observation 4: Either RRC specification rapporteur or volunteered RAN2 company can take the responsibility to merge temporary RRC specification for ASN.1 review.
Proposal 1: RAN2 endorse the below Rel-19 ASN.1 review timeline:
After RAN2 WG meeting, RAN2 start RRC running CR review and endorse.
RAN2 merge temporary RRC spec (by MCC or RRC specification rapporteur or volunteered RAN2 company), meanwhile, RAN2 start per WI ASN.1 review based on endorsed per WI RRC CR.
After merged temporary RRC spec is ready, RAN2 start cross-WI ASN.1 review and continue per WI ASN.1 review based on merged temporary RRC spec. (1st ASN.1 review is around 3-4 weeks, 2nd ASN.1 review is around 2 weeks)
RIL discussion paper submitted to RAN2 #131bis meeting, deadline is expected at Wednesday before the meeting week.
RAN2 repeat the same procedure for 2nd round ASN.1 review after RAN2 #131bis meeting.

Proposal 2: RAN2 to use a WORD/EXCEL document with unique quoting to the original context in the specification as review file to collect companies’ comment, which is a separate file from RRC specification.
Proposal 3: The separate review file should be per WI (including cross-WI) per company.

3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #130	R2-2503728
St. Julians, Malta, 19-23 May 2025

Agenda item:	8.0
Source:	Apple, OPPO, Huawei, HiSilicon, Samsung 
Title:	Discussion on CT1 Reply LS (C1-252546) on RAT restrictions 
WID/SID:	ECRATU – Release 19
Document for:	Discussion and Decision
1 

Conclusion
In this contribution, based on the incoming Reply CT1 LS, we discuss 2G/3G aspects on RAT utilization control and have the following proposals:

Proposal 1	RAN2 confirms that AS layer support of ECARTU feature (i.e., cell selection and reselection procedure) by GERAN/UTRAN is optional.
Proposal 2	RAN2 endorse the RAN plenary CRs of GERAN/UTRAN in the Appendix.
4 

3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #130	R2-2504148
St. Julian’s, Malta, 19th – 23rd May 2025

Agenda Item:	8.0
Source:	Huawei, HiSilicon
Title:	Practical aspects of R19 ASN.1 review
Document for: Discussion and Decision
1	

Conclusion
This contribution makes the following observations and proposals:
Observation 1a: There is a large performance difference between reviewing TS 38.331 in "draft view" and in "print layout" in MS word. Using only "draft view" can largely reduce how frequently/long MS word is freezing.
Observation 1b: In MS word "draft view", with pointers in bubble comments, issue numbers and hyperlinks are not visible; with pointers in the text, issue numbers are easy to see and hyperlinks are visible and can be followed.
Proposal 1: If comments are at the end of the word file, the corresponding "pointer" to each issue (issue number and/or hyperlink) is placed in the specification text instead of the bubble comments to allow only using MS word "draft view".
Proposal 3: If Proposal 1 is agreed, RAN2 can further discuss if there is a need to divide the RRC specification for review into separate files (such as by section). In our opinion, given that an RRC issue can affect multiple sections, doing such section-based splitting unnecessarily increase the complexity of the ASN.1 review process.
Proposal 3: For ASN.1 review between RAN2#131 (August) and RAN2#131bis (October):
a)	Start review on agreed RRC CRs on September 8th (i.e., per agreed RRC CR)
b) Companies should submit their comments using the formal ASN.1 review format (e.g. using RIL numbers and putting comments in a separate table at the end of the document).
c)	RRC CR rapporteurs move comments to the merged Rel-19 TS 38.331 (draft or final, TBD) when available
The exact timing of c) can be adjusted according to practical feasibility.