R1-2603328
discussion
Summary for LS R1-2601764 on capability reporting for PRS Processing Window
From AT&T
Summary
This document summarizes the RAN1 discussion regarding LS R1-2601764 on capability reporting for PRS Processing Window (PPW) in the context of AI/ML-based positioning. It captures divergent views from vendors on whether capabilities 58-2-9, 58-2-10, and 58-2-11 should be reported to the gNB, the LMF, or both, with a final moderator proposal suggesting these capabilities should not be reported to the gNB. The document contains approximately 15 distinct proposals and observations across various vendor contributions.
Position
AT&T, acting as the moderator, presents FL Proposal 4-1 stating that FG 58-2-9, 58-2-10, and 58-2-11 should not be reported to the gNB. This position aligns with the architectural principle cited by Huawei and Qualcomm that the gNB should not be aware of the specific UE-based positioning method (e.g., AIML Case 1 vs. DL-TDOA). The document highlights that reporting separate AIML-specific capabilities to the gNB would create ambiguity regarding which capability values to consider for configuration, given that legacy capabilities (FG 27-3-2, 27-3-3, 27-23) already exist. Consequently, the moderator proposes that these new capabilities be handled without explicit reporting to the gNB, effectively relying on existing mechanisms or LMF-only knowledge.
Key proposals
- FL Proposal 3-1 (Sec 3): FG 58-2-9 and 58-2-10 should be known to both gNB and LMF; FG 58-2-11 should be known only to gNB.
- FL Proposal 4-1 (Sec 4): FG 58-2-9, 58-2-10, and 58-2-11 should not be reported to the gNB.
- Vivo Proposal (Sec 2.1): Capabilities 58-2-9, 58-2-10, and 58-2-11 should be provided to the gNB.
- Spreadtrum/UNISOC Proposal (Sec 2.2): Capability 58-2-11 should be signaled only to the gNB; 58-2-9 and 58-2-10 should also be known to the gNB.
- Samsung Proposal 1 (Sec 2.3): Capability 58-2-11 needs to be informed to gNB and can be informed to LMF.
- Samsung Proposal 2 (Sec 2.3): Capabilities 58-2-9 and 58-2-10 should also be known to gNB.
- ZTE Proposal (Sec 2.4): Capabilities 58-2-11, 58-2-9, and 58-2-10 should be known to both gNB and LMF.
- Ofinno Proposal 1 (Sec 2.5): UE capability 58-2-11 does not need to be known to the LMF.
- Ofinno Proposal 2 (Sec 2.5): UE capabilities 58-2-9 and 58-2-11 need to be known to both gNB and LMF.
- CATT Proposal (Sec 2.6): Capability 58-2-11 is sent only to gNB; 58-2-9 and 58-2-10 are known to gNB.
- OPPO Proposal 1 (Sec 2.7): Capability 58-2-11 should be known only to gNB; 58-2-9 and 58-2-10 should be known to both gNB and LMF.
- Huawei/HiSilicon Proposal 1 (Sec 2.8): FG 58-2-9, 58-2-10, and 58-2-11 should not be reported to gNB.
- Ericsson Proposal (Sec 2.9): Capability 58-2-11 should be known only to gNB; 58-2-9 and 58-2-10 should be known to gNB and LMF.
- Qualcomm View (Sec 3.1): None of the three capabilities need to be reported to the gNB; existing RRC IEs for legacy capabilities should be reused.
- ZTE Comment (Sec 3.2): FG 58-2-11 should be known to both gNB and LMF to avoid configuration exceeding UE capabilities.