Spreadtrum · 9.1.4.2

Spreadtrum proposes that RAN1 should not discuss data collection for UE-side model training, preferring mechanism 1a or waiting for RAN2 progress due to privacy concerns regarding network exposure. They require that model transfer/delivery Case z1 be deprioritized in Rel-19, arguing it incurs unnecessary offline cross-vendor collaboration burdens compared to Case y. They oppose considering MI-Option 1 for two-sided use cases, asserting that the data collection steps (A-C) are unnecessary for model identification and that Step E can be realized by MI-Option 2 or 3. They observe that RAN1 should focus on the content of model structure, leaving model format and signaling to other working groups. They support considering MI-Option 2, 3, and 4 for two-sided use cases, noting that MI-Option 4 depends on defining reference models.

Spreadtrum advocates FOR deprioritizing model transfer cases z1 and z2 in Rel-19 due to cross-vendor collaboration burdens and proprietary design disclosure risks. They support mechanism 1a for UE data collection to avoid privacy exposure to network, and promote network-controlled model identification where NW assigns model IDs. They are AGAINST redundant procedures in MI-Option 1 and prefer focusing RAN1 scope on model content rather than signaling formats.