Technical differences between TDoc R4-2305016 and TDoc R4-2305017:

1. Frequency Bands: The two TDocs propose different frequency band combinations for Dual Connectivity (DC) in LTE inter-band CA and NR inter-band CA. TDoc R4-2305016 proposes x bands (x=1,2,3,4 for y=1 or x=1,2 for y=2) while TDoc R4-2305017 proposes DC_41A_n77A.

Example from TDoc R4-2305016: "Revised WID on High power UE (power class m with 1
Example from TDoc R4-2305017: "Revised WID on High power UE (power class m with 1
2. Agenda Item: The two TDocs have different agenda items. TDoc R4-2305016 has an agenda item of "DC_1A_n41A" while TDoc R4-2305017 has an agenda item of "DC_41A_n77A".

Example from TDoc R4-2305016: "Agenda item: 4.17.2 Document for: Approval"

Example from TDoc R4-2305017: "Agenda item: 4.17.2 Document for: Approval"

3. DC Combination: The two TDocs propose different DC combinations in LTE inter-band CA and NR inter-band CA. TDoc R4-2305016 proposes x bands while TDoc R4-2305017 proposes DC_41A_n77A.

Example from TDoc R4-2305016: "Revised WID on High power UE (power class m with 1
Example from TDoc R4-2305017: "Revised WID on High power UE (power class m with 1
4. Request in Reference [1]: The two TDocs propose different DC combinations based on the request in Reference [1].

Example from TDoc R4-2305016: "1. This contribution is a text proposal for TR 38.898 to include DC_1A_n41A according to the request in [1]."

Example from TDoc R4-2305017: "1. This contribution is a text proposal for TR 38.898 to include DC_41A_n77A according to the request in [1]."

Technical Differences between TDoc R4-2305753 and TDoc R4-2305767:

1. Number of Bands: TDoc R4-2305753 discusses Inter-band EN-DC configurations within FR1 using four bands, while TDoc R4-2305767 deals with two bands only.

Example from TDoc R4-2305753: Table 5.5B.4.3-1: Inter-band EN-DC configurations within FR1 (four bands)

2. Power Output: TDoc R4-2305753 does not mention power output, while TDoc R4-2305767 provides Maximum output power for inter-band EN-DC (two bands).

Example from TDoc R4-2305767: Table 6.2B.1.3-1: Maximum output power for inter-band EN-DC (two bands)

3. Configuration: TDoc R4-2305753 has a subsection titled "Inter-band EN-DC configurations within FR1 (four bands)" while TDoc R4-2305767 has a section titled "Inter-band EN-DC within FR1" with a subsection titled "Inter-band EN-DC configurations within FR1 (two bands)"

Example from TDoc R4-2305753: 5.5B.4.3 Inter-band EN-DC configurations within FR1 (four bands)

Example from TDoc R4-2305767: 5.5B.4.1 Inter-band EN-DC configurations within FR1 (two bands)

4. Table: TDoc R4-2305753 has Table 5.5B.4.3-1 specifically for inter-band EN-DC configurations within FR1 using four bands, while TDoc R4-2305767 has Table 5.5B.4.1-1 for inter-band EN-DC configurations within FR1 using two bands.

Example from TDoc R4-2305753: Table 5.5B.4.3-1: Inter-band EN-DC configurations within FR1 (four bands)

Example from TDoc R4-2305767: Table 5.5B.4.1-1: Inter-band EN-DC configurations within FR1 (two bands)

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.18.1 : Rapporteur input

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.18.2 : UE RF requirements with PC2 and PC1.5

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.19.2 : UE RF requirements

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.20 : High power UE for FR1 NR inter-band CA/DC or SUL band combination with y DL-x UL and PCm (m<3) and high power on TDD

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.20.1 : Rapporteur input

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.20.2 : UE RF requirements with PC2 and PC1.5

Tx on each band, the A-MPR for PC1.5 is needed in order to complete the band combination.

- TDoc R4-2304579 proposes the need for A-MPR for NS_47 PC1.5 to complete a number of HPUE combinations with n41 PC1.5 1UL for Japan.
- The same TDoc conducted NS_47 emissions measurement for a 30MHz channel for 1TX PC2, 2TX PC2, and 2TX PC1.5 for various power back-offs to determine the difference in back off needed between PC2 and PC1.5 to meet the NS_47 emissions.
- Preliminary analysis shows that 2Tx PC1.5 achieves about 2.5dB higher power compared to the 2Tx PC2 case.
- TDoc R4-2305829 notes that for harmonics and harmonic mixing, and cross-band isolation, since the transmit power on each band would be limited to PC2 for PC1.5 inter-band UL CA with 2 Tx, the harmonic, harmonic mixing, and cross-band isolation MSD the PC2 MSD would apply.
- The maximum output power of 29 dBm +2/-3dB can be re-used from single-band PC1.5.
- For most PC1.5 inter-band uplink CA combinations with PC2 single Tx on each band, 29 +2/-3 dBm should be appropriate.
- A-MPR for PC1.5 is needed for PC1.5 inter-band uplink CA with PC2 single Tx on each band to complete the band combination.

• TDoc R4-2305018 specifies DL/2UL interband reference sensitivity for QPSK PREFSENS and uplink/downlink configurations for PC2 CA. It includes band/channel bandwidth/NRB/duplex mode, source of IMD, NR CA band combination, NR band UL Fc (MHz), UL/DL BW (MHz), UL CLRB, DL Fc (MHz), MSD (dB), and duplex mode.
Example snippets: "n3 1755 5 25 1850 25.8 FDD IMD32," "n77 4195 10 50 4195 N/A TDD N/A," "NOTE 2: This band is subject to IMD4 also which MSD is not specified."

• TDoc R4-2305019 lists n417 n777 CA_n28A-n41A7 CA_n28A-n77A7 CA_n41A-n77A7 with different configurations such as n28 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 0, n41 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 80, 90, 100, and n77 CA_n77(2A)_BCS0. It includes power class 2 for uplink combination or single uplink carrier in downlink/uplink combinations and maximum output power.
Example snippets: "Power Class 2 is allowed for this uplink combination or single uplink carrier in this downlink/uplink combination," "UE Power Class 2 for uplink inter-band CA (two bands)."

• TDoc R4-2305020 provides table 5.x.3.3-1 for reference sensitivity exceptions and uplink/downlink configurations due to harmonic mixing from a PC1.5 aggressor. It specifies NR UL band for NR DL CA FR1 UL band DL band UL BW SCS of UL band UL RB Allocation DL BW MSD UL/DL fc condition UL/DL harmonic order.
Example snippets: "n77 n28 5 15 25 (RBstart=0) 5 34 NOTE 1 UL1/DL5," "n77 n28 30 15 160 (RBstart=0) 30 14.7 NOTE 1 UL1/DL5."

• The paper is TP for HPUE CA_n28-n77 with single uplink and dual UL for TR 38.899. It includes configurations for inter-band CA (two bands), NR CA configuration, Uplink CA configuration or single uplink carrier, NR Band, and Channel bandwidth (MHz).
Example snippet: "CA_n28-n77 5.x.1 Configurations Table 5.x.1-1: NR CA configurations and bandwidth combinations sets defined for inter-band CA (two bands)."

1. Number of bands:
- Tables 5.5A.3.1-1k, 5.5A.3.1-1l, 5.5A.3.1-1m, 5.5A.3.1-1a, 5.5A.3.1-1b, 5.5A.3.1-1c, and 5.5A.3.1-1d are defined for inter-band CA with two bands.
- Table 5.5A.3.1-1n is defined for inter-band CA with four bands.
- Table 5.5A.3.2-1 is defined for inter-band CA with three bands.

2. NR CA configurations and bandwidth combinations:
- All tables are defined for NR CA configurations and bandwidth combinations sets.

3. Minimum requirements:
- NOTE 2 in Table 5.5A.3.1-1d states that the minimum requirements for intra-band contiguous or non-contiguous CA apply.

Example snippets from TDoc R4-2304958:
- Table 5.5A.3.1-1k: "This table lists the NR CA configurations and bandwidth combinations sets defined for inter-band CA with two bands."
- Table 5.5A.3.1-1n: "This table lists the NR CA configurations and bandwidth combinations sets defined for inter-band CA with four bands."
- NOTE 2 in Table 5.5A.3.1-1d: "The minimum requirements for intra-band contiguous or non-contiguous CA apply."

Example snippets from TDoc R4-2304970:
- Table 5.5A.3.2-1: "This table lists the NR CA configurations and bandwidth combinations sets defined for inter-band CA with three bands."
- Table 5.5A.3.1-1a: "This table lists the NR CA configurations and bandwidth combinations sets defined for inter-band CA with two bands."

- Table 5.5A.1-1 or Table 5.5A.2-1 in specification 5.5A.3 provide CA configurations
- 5.5A.3.2 provides configurations for inter-band CA (three bands)
- Minimum requirements for intra-band contiguous or non-contiguous CA apply
- Minimum requirements for bandwidth restricted to operation when carrier is configured as a downlink SCell part of CA configuration
- Limited to operation at 3450-3550 MHz and 3700-3980 MHz
- SCS of each channel bandwidth for NR band refers to Table 5.3.5-1
- Table 5.5A.3.2-1 provides NR CA configurations and bandwidth combinations sets defined for inter-band CA (three bands)
- Power Class 1.5 allowed for single uplink carrier in this downlink/uplink combination
- Only single uplink carriers with power class other than PC3 are listed for NR CA configurations and bandwidth combinations sets defined for inter-band CA (two bands)
- Maximum output power specified in Table 6.2A.1.3-2 for inter-band downlink carrier aggregation with one uplink carrier assigned to one NR band for power classes other than class 3
- Transmitter power requirements in clause 6.2 apply for power class 3 inter-band downlink carrier aggregation with one uplink carrier assigned to one NR band
- UE maximum output power shall be measured over all component carriers from different bands for inter-band uplink carrier aggregation with uplink assigned to two NR bands
- The maximum output power is the sum of maximum output power from each UE antenna connector if each band has separate antenna connectors.
- Transmitter power requirements in Table 6.2.1-1 apply for inter-band downlink carrier aggregation with one uplink carrier assigned to one NR band for power class 3 and other power classes if indicated in clause 5.5A.3
- MaxDutyNR,x or maxDutyNR,y equals 50% if power class of one or both of the bands within the band combination is power class 2 and the corresponding UE capability maxUplinkDutyCycle-PC2-FR1 is absent
- MaxDutyNR,x or maxDutyNR,y equals 100% if the band is configured with power class 3

Example snippets:

- NOTE 11: The CA configurations are given in Table 5.5A.1-1 or Table 5.5A.2-1 in this specification
- Table 5.5A.3.2-1: NR CA configurations and bandwidth combinations sets defined for inter-band CA (three bands)
- Power Class 1.5 is allowed for this uplink combination or single uplink carrier in this downlink/uplink combination
- For other power class except class 3 inter-band downlink carrier aggregation with one uplink carrier assigned to one NR band, the maximum output power is specified in Table 6.2A.1.3-2
- For inter-band uplink carrier aggregation with uplink assigned to two NR bands, UE maximum output power shall be measured over all component carriers from different bands
- The maximum output power is specified in Table 6.2.1-1 for inter-band downlink carrier aggregation with one uplink carrier assigned to one NR band for power class 3 and other power classes if indicated in clause 5.5A.3
- MaxDutyNR,x or maxDutyNR,y equals 50% if power class of one or both of the bands within the band combination is power class 2 and the corresponding UE capability maxUplinkDutyCycle-PC2-FR1 is absent
- MaxDutyNR,x or maxDutyNR,y equals 100% if the band is configured with power class 3

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.21.2 : UE RF requirements

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.22.2 : UE RF requirements

Technical differences among the TDoc are as follows:

- RSD values for smaller channel bandwidth are closer, but the difference between values for higher bandwidth is larger.
- The current PC2 FDD work will cover A-MPR related aspects; only the 20/25MHz UL/DL RSD evaluation for PC2 is needed.
- Symmetrical 25 and 30MHz CBW for n71 should not be considered complete until PC2 FDD 1Tx and 2Tx RDS is specified for symmetrical UL/DL 25 and 30MHz CBW.
- NS_35 SEM requirement compliance with MPR for 25MHz and 30MHz needs to be verified for PC3 and PC2.
- Table 2-1 2Tx PC2 MSD relative to PC3 REFSENS.


Examples from the original TDoc to support the difference highlighting are:

- "According to analyses from previous meetings for certain FDD bands, the RSD values for smaller channel bandwidth (e.g. for <=20MHz for n8) are closer, but the difference between values for higher bandwidth is larger."
- "Since the 20MHz UL is used, all the UL related requirements are already specified in 38.101-1 for PC3 and the current PC2 FDD work will cover A-MPR related aspects; thus, only the 20/25MHz UL/DL RSD evaluation for PC2 is needed."
- "Symmetrical 25 and 30MHz CBW for n71 should not be considered complete until PC2 FDD 1Tx and 2Tx RDS is specified for symmetrical UL/DL 25 and 30MHz CBW."
- "NS_35 SEM requirement compliance with MPR for 25MHz and 30MHz needs to be verified for PC3 and PC2."
- "The 2Tx MSD analysis was based on the PC3 REFSENS requirements to first extract the Tx noise, assuming antenna isolation is 10 dB. The Tx noise was then added to thermal noise for both main and diversity Rx paths, followed by MRC to calculate the equivalent total noise for 2Tx configuration."

Technical Differences:

1. TDoc R4-2304084 discusses the degradation of PC2 reference sensitivity with 2TX architecture in FDD low bands, while TDoc R4-2305393 proposes the RSD of n2, n5, n8, n25, n26, n28, n71 for PC2 FDD in both 1Tx and 2Tx architecture.
2. TDoc R4-2304084 provides a formula to derive TX noise by leveraging PC3 REFSENS, while TDoc R4-2305393 does not provide such a formula.
3. TDoc R4-2304084 highlights Table 4 for 2TX PC2 reference sensitivity degradation, while TDoc R4-2305393 highlights both Table 3 for 1Tx PC2 and Table 4 for 2Tx PC2 reference sensitivity degradation.

Supporting Examples from TDoc R4-2304084:

1. "Regarding PC2 for FDD low bands, the 2TX PC2 reference sensitivity degradation in Table4 should be taken into account."
2. "According to the 3GPP REFSEN formula, i.e., REFSENS(dBm) =-174dBm+NF+10log(RXBW)+SNR+IM, the TX noise can be derived by leveraging the PC3 REFSENS, and then the following results can be obtained, as shown in table 2:"
3. "Table 4."

Supporting Examples from TDoc R4-2305393:

1. "The RSD of n2, n5, n8, n25, n26, n28, n71 for PC2 FDD are proposed highlighted as Table 3 and Table 4."
2. "Table 3."
3. "Table 4."

• TDoc R4-2304518 proposes defining the 1Tx PC2 A-MPR requirements for BW=5MHz and highlights the lack of scalability in the current specification when changing the SCS from 15kHz to 30kHz.
Example from TDoc R4-2304518: "As a result, the regions are not scalable if the SCS is changed from 15kHz to 30kHz."

• TDoc R4-2304518 shows that A-MPR is needed for PC2 NS_18 for BW=10MHz with SCS=30kHz, despite the current specification only allowing PC3 A-MPR for SCS=15kHz.
Example from TDoc R4-2304518: "It can be seen from the results in Table 1 that some A-MPR is needed for PC2 NS_18 for BW=10MHz with SCS=30kHz, although the PC3 A-MPR in the current specification is only allowed for SCS=15kHz."

• TDoc R4-2304518 defines three regions for A-MPR values for BW=15MHz in the existing PC3 A-MPR requirements, all having the value of A6.
Example from TDoc R4-2304518: "For BW=15MHz, three regions are defined in the existing PC3 A-MPR requirements, all having the A-MPR value of A6."

• TDoc R4-2304518 presents figures that highlight differences in A-MPR simulation results between PC2 and PC3, and plots only the PC2 A-MPR, for which 0dB is assigned if A-MPR ≤ PC2 MPR.
Example from TDoc R4-2304518: "The figures in the 2nd column show the differences of the A-MPR simulation results between PC2 and PC3, and the figures in the 3rd column plot only the PC2 A-MPR."

• TDoc R4-2304519 proposes A-MPR values for PC2 1Tx for different bandwidths and reuses existing PC3 A-MPR regions.
Example from TDoc R4-2304519: "Proposal 1: For NS_18 PC2 1Tx BW=5MHz, define the A-MPR values for A1 as follows: Table 2: NS_18 PC2 A-MPR for BW=5MHz"

• TDoc R4-2304519 suggests adding BW=25MHz to the requirements for NS_18 in Table 6.5.3.3-1 of TS 38.101-1.
Example from TDoc R4-2304519: "Proposal 4: Add BW=25MHz to the requirements for NS_18 in Table 6.5.3.3-1 of TS 38.101-1."

- TDoc R4-2304509 addresses the variation of reference sensitivity degradation with 2TX architecture.
- The proposal suggests agreeing on 2TX RSD values in WF [1] if there are no new specific concerns.
- The RSD variation for each band from companies’ contribution is provided in Table 1.
- The RSD variation is close to +/-2 dB range.
- TDoc R4-2304517 proposes considering the MSD values in Table 1 for band n13 and n66 when defining the PC2 REFSENS degradation requirements.
- The paper presents the PC2 MSD analysis for some additional bands, following the same methodology used in a previous contribution [2].
- Observation 2 notes that the average MSD values for band n2 exhibit some irregularity in that 2Tx MSD values are smaller than those for 1Tx for BW=20/25MHz.
- MSD for these three bands are not shown in Table 2.
- Table 1 shows REFSENS degradation for 1Tx and 2Tx (SCS=15kHz).
- For band n66, no REFSENS degradation is proposed due to the large duplexer distance, similar to the treatment for band n1.
- Proposal 2 suggests further discussing the PC2 MSD requirements for band n2.

Example snippets from TDoc R4-2304509:

- "Proposal 1: Based on observation 1, regarding the PC2 reference sensitivity degradation (RSD) with 2TX architecture, to agree the 2TX RSD values in WF [1] if there is no new specific concern."
- "After checking the variation values in Table 1, we observe that the RSD variation is close to +/-2 dB range."
- "For checking the 2TX PC2 reference sensitivity degradation (RSD), the RSD variation for each band from companies’ contribution is provided in Table 1 below."

Example snippets from TDoc R4-2304517:

- "Proposal 1: Consider the MSD values in Table 1 for band n13 and n66 when defining the PC2 REFSENS degradation requirements."
- "This paper presents the PC2 MSD analysis for some additional bands (i.e. band n13 and n66) following the same methodology used in our previous contribution [2]."
- "Table 1: REFSENS degradation for 1Tx and 2Tx (SCS=15kHz) For band n66, no REFSENS degradation is proposed due to the large duplexer distance, which is similar to the treatment for band n1."
- "Proposal 2: Further discuss the PC2 MSD requirements for band n2."
- "Observation 2: The average MSD values for band n2 exhibits some irregularity in that 2Tx MSD values are smaller than those for 1Tx for BW=20/25MHz."

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.23.2 : UE RF requirements

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.25.1 : Rapporteur input

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.25.2 : UE RF requirements

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.26.1 : Rapporteur input

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.26.2.1 : Single band requirements

• TDoc R4-2304556 discusses the need for PC2 RSD to complete the 25MHz CBW for n8.

• The PC2 RSD and A-MPR for other Band n8 CBW have already been evaluated and discussed within the PC2 FDD.

• The PC2 aspect can be covered either in the “Adding channel BW support in existing NR bands” or in the “PC2 FDD” WI.

• Table 1 provides the 25MHz and 30MHz MRC calculations for the PC3 and PC2 1Tx and 2Tx cases based on measured UL interference in the DL CBW.

• The 25MHz addition for n8 cannot be considered complete until the PC2 1Tx and 2Tx RSDs are agreed upon within the “Adding new channel BWs support to existing NR bands” WI.

• The WI status is updated accordingly.

• Additionally, the document provides an evaluation of the PC2 RSDs.

• TDoc R4-2304559 discusses IMD interference for the new UL CBW.

• With the increased UL CBW of the 25MHz and 30MHz symmetrical UL/DL CBW, the PC3 REFSENS should be re-evaluated.

• The REFSENS value of -76.6 dBm and -67.3 dBm can be used for 25MHz and 30MHz CBW, respectively, with 20RB0 UL allocation.

• Proposal on PC2 RSD: How to capture PC2 1Tx and 2Tx RSD for the optional symmetrical UL/DL cases in 38.101-1 is FFS.

• A RSDS value of 2.8dB and 3.0dB can be used for 1Tx RSD for 25MHz and 30MHz CBW, respectively.

• A RSDS value of 6.4dB and 6.7dB can be used for 2Tx RSD for 25MHz and 30MHz CBW, respectively.

• For reference, the calculations for both 20MHz UL restricted case and the new symmetrical UL/DL are provided.

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.27.2 : Identification of simultaneous Rx/Tx capability for band combinations and UE RF requirements

lower channel MSD test points and MSD levels for different band combinations. Observation 2: The SUL_n41-n97A band combination has a different MSD requirement compared to the other TDD-TDD band combinations. Proposal 2: For the SUL_n41-n97A band combination, adopt the MSD test points of Table 4 for PC3 operation.

Technical differences among the TDocs:

- TDoc R4-2305140 discusses the MSD for harmonic mixing issue for simultaneous RxTx CA_n39-n41, while TDoc R4-2305740 and R4-2305742 discuss maximum sensitivity degradation (MSD) for TDD-TDD band combinations with simultaneous RxTx operation.
- Table 5.2.2-2 in TDoc R4-2305140 shows the impact of UL/DL harmonic mixing for the band combination of n39 and n41, while Table 2 in TDoc R4-2305741 summarizes the PC3 MSD requirements for simultaneous RxTx in CA_n40A-n41A.
- TDoc R4-2305742 proposes three options to resolve the MSD differences for band n41 10MHz lower channel MSD due to simultaneous RxTx operation of CA_n34A-n41A.
- TDoc R4-2305740 mentions restrictions on enabling uplink-MIMO/transmit diversity or SRS-AS for some TDD-TDD band combinations where both bands are in close frequency range.
- TDoc R4-2305741 discusses the support of 100MHz in band n40 and its impact on the IM landscape.
- TDoc R4-2305140 specifies the UE Power Class for uplink CA_n39A-n41A in Table 5.2.1.2-1.
- TDoc R4-2305742 proposes adopting the MSD test points of Table 4 for PC3 operation for the SUL_n41-n97A band combination.

- Tolerance (dB) for CA_n7A-n40A and CA_n39A-n41A is 23 with a range of +2/-3.
- Table 5.4.1.3-1 specifies ΔTIB,c due to CA_n7-n40, while Table 5.1.1.3-1 specifies ΔTIB,c due to CA_n34-n41.
- Table 5.4.2.3-1 specifies cross band isolation for simultaneous Rx-Tx with CA_n7A-n40A, while Table 5.1.3.1-1 specifies cross band isolation for simultaneous Rx-Tx with CA_n34A-n41A.
- Table 5.2.3.1-2 and Table 5.2.3.1-1 specify ΔRIB,c and ΔTIB,c respectively for inter-band CA combinations in NR bands.
- The UE Power Class for uplink CA_n7A-n40A is specified in Table 5.4.1.2-1.
- Table 5.2.1-1 specifies inter-band CA operating bands involving FR1 NR CA Band and NR Band, with DL interruption allowed.
- Table 5.2.2.4-2 specifies the impact of UL/DL Harmonic mixing 2nd.
- Table 5.1.1.1-1 specifies inter-band CA operating bands involving FR1 NR CA Band and NR Band, with antenna ISO.
- Table 5.3.3.2-1a specifies PC3 cross band isolation for simultaneous Rx-Tx with CA_n40A-n41A.

Example snippets from the original TDoc:

- "The ΔTIB,c due to CA_n7-n40 are specified in Table 5.4.1.3-1."
- "Table 5.2.3.1-2: ΔRIB,c for NR bands (dB)"
- "Table 5.4.2.3-1: Cross band isolation for simultaneous Rx-Tx with CA_n7A-n40A"
- "The UE Power Class for uplink CA_n7A-n40A are specified in Table 5.4.1.2-1."
- "Table 5.2.1-1: Inter-band CA operating bands involving FR1 NR CA Band and NR Band"
- "Table 5.2.2.4-2: Impact of UL/DL Harmonic mixing 2nd"
- "Table 5.3.3.2-1a: PC3 Cross band isolation for simultaneous Rx-Tx with CA_n40A-n41A"
- "Table 5.1.1.1-1: Inter-band CA operating bands involving FR1 NR CA Band and NR Band"
- "Table 5.1.1.3-1: ΔTIB,c due to CA_n34-n41"

Technical differences among the TDoc snippets:

- The first TDoc (R4-2304319) proposes a relaxation for carrier aggregation with simultaneous Rx-Tx between n40 and n41 for handheld devices, allowing improved performance of simultaneous Rx-Tx together with MIMO operation on these bands. However, sharing antennas between n40 and n41 for uplink and downlink is challenging due to close frequency separation in simultaneous Rx-Tx.
- The second TDoc (R4-2304871) proposes two options for calculating the minimum separation distance (MSD) due to cross-band isolation of CA_n40-n41 when enabling simultaneous Rx/Tx operation, and discusses the harmonization of requirements for NR CA, EN-DC, and NR SUL corresponding combos. It also lists assumptions for MSD analysis and proposes crossband isolation MSD values for CA_n40-n41 in Table 3 and Table 4.
- The third TDoc (R4-2305436) provides cross-band isolation MSD analysis for CA_n40-n41 and proposes crossband isolation MSD values for CA_n40-n41 as in Table 3 and Table 4. It also lists assumptions for MSD analysis and provides tables and figures on noise and interference in Band n40/n41 Rx, n40 MSD when n41 is UL band, and n41 MSD when n40 is UL band.
- The fourth TDoc (R4-2305437) provides cross-band isolation MSD analysis for CA_n34-n41 and proposes crossband isolation MSD values for CA_n34-n41 as in Table below. It also lists assumptions for MSD analysis and provides tables and figures on band n41 Rx/Tx filter rejection at n34, band n34 filter performance, and example duplexer performance of band n34.

Examples from the original TDoc snippets:

- From R4-2304319: "The relaxation for carrier aggregation with simultaneous Rx-Tx between n40 and n41 can be implemented by introducing a new note to Table 7.3.2-1b" and "In case of simultaneous Rx-Tx between n40 and n41 it is challenging to share antennas for uplink and downlink as filter isolation is marginal due to the close frequency separation of the two bands."
- From R4-2304871: "The MSD is evaluated for both PC3 and PC2" and "We re-calculate MSD on n40/n41 with the components data in our vendor pool and calculation assumption listed below."
- From R4-2305436: "MSD for 10MHz is similar to that specified for SUL_n41-n97, which is 20.6dB, however, the value for 100MHz is a bit different, which is 15.6 dB" and "List of assumptions for MSD analysis Table 1 lists the assumptions for cross band isolation MSD analysis for CA_n40-n41."
- From R4-2305437: "According to the available data from vendors, band n41 Rx/Tx filter rejection at n34 is around 27dB" and "This contribution provides cross band isolation MSD analysis for CA_n34-n41."

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.29.2 : Enhancements for 4Rx at low frequency band (<1GHz)

Technical Differences:

1. Adding two LB antennas to a handheld UE may require reshaping and rearranging the placement of the existing antennas, which may impact the antenna performance for other frequency bands and non-3GPP radios.

- "Another concern would be that under a fixed volume/space for all the required antenna elements in a handheld UE, adding additional two LB antenna may impose reshaping and rearranging the placement of the existing antenna which may also impact the antenna performance for other frequency bands (> 1.7 GHz) and non-3GPP radios."

2. For LB 4Rx design, adding two additional LB antennas should ensure that they have acceptable radiative performance for all the supported lower frequency bands without impacting the original 2Rx antenna performance for the same supported lower frequency bands.

- "Observation 6: For LB 4Rx design, adding two additional LB antenna should ensure not only the added antenna are with acceptable radiative performance for all the supported lower frequency bands, but also not to impact the original 2Rx antenna performance for the same supported lower frequency bands."

3. The number of antennas packed in a handheld UE has grown substantially to cover the wide frequency ranges for all the supported radio technologies and MIMO feature.

- "Observation 2: In order to cover the wide frequency ranges for all the supported radio technologies and MIMO feature, the number of antenna packed in a handheld UE has grown substantially."

4. Once the feasibility of low band 4Rx for handheld UE is confirmed, 4Rx is supposed to be endowed for all the requested low bands included and to be included in the WI.

- "Proposal 1: Once the feasibility of low band 4Rx for handheld UE is confirmed, 4Rx is supposed to be endowed for all the requested low bands included and to be included in the WI."

5. New signaling is not introduced, regardless of whether the delta RIB,4R requirement is the same or different between handheld UE and FWA, as the benefit of such signaling is unclear.

- "Proposals Option 1: New signaling is not introduced, no matter the delta RIB,4R requirement is same or different between handheld UE and FWA, considering the benefit of such signaling is unclear."

6. Whether new signaling is needed to differentiate requirements for FWA and handheld UE can be discussed after the requirements are defined.

- "Discussion WF: Whether new signalling is needed to differentiate requirements for FWA and handheld UE can be discussed after the requirements are defined."

Example Snippets:

- "Another concern would be that under a fixed volume/space for all the required antenna elements in a handheld UE, adding additional two LB antenna may impose reshaping and rearranging the placement of the existing antenna which may also impact the antenna performance for other frequency bands (> 1.7 GHz) and non-3GPP radios."
- "Observation 6: For LB 4Rx design, adding two additional LB antenna should ensure not only the added antenna are with acceptable radiative performance for all the supported lower frequency bands, but also not to impact the original 2Rx antenna performance for the same supported lower frequency bands."
- "Observation 2: In order to cover the wide frequency ranges for all the supported radio technologies and MIMO feature, the number of antenna packed in a handheld UE has grown substantially."
- "Proposal 1: Once the feasibility of low band 4Rx for handheld UE is confirmed, 4Rx is supposed to be endowed for all the requested low bands included and to be included in the WI."
- "Proposals Option 1: New signaling is not introduced, no matter the delta RIB,4R requirement is same or different between handheld UE and FWA, considering the benefit of such signaling is unclear."
- "Discussion WF: Whether new signalling is needed to differentiate requirements for FWA and handheld UE can be discussed after the requirements are defined."

- TDoc R4-2305135 highlights the use of ΔTRxSRS for TDD bands to enable gNB to determine appropriate MIMO/Precoding for downlink via uplink SRS information and optimize downlink process using channel estimation result for uplink based on SRS. The significance of this new signalling is to eliminate the need for different UE types to have different RF requirements defined in the spec.
- TDoc R4-2305293 observed that delta RIB,4R=-2.7dB is defined for 4Rx operation with the restriction that only targets FWA form factor, and antenna impact cannot be considered when testing. It proposes a delta RIB,4R specification for below 1GHz bands, considering the similarity in RFFE complexity/ILs and imbalance between different Rx chains for FWA and handheld UE.
- TDoc R4-2305429 highlights that similar RFSENS gain can be achieved for FWA and for Smartphone when supporting 4Rx in low bands because the main difficulty is antenna design rather than RFFE. It proposes a delta RIB,4R requirement for below 1GHz bands, considering LTE's specified b20 as -2.7dB and no difference between handheld UE and FWA in RFFE.
- TDoc R4-2305566 proposes that SRS antenna switching should be supported for FDD bands, even though it is designed for TDD bands due to channel reciprocity. It recommends no restriction on the feature for TDD bands only because there is no limitation in RAN4 spec, and even in RAN1, there is no such limitation.
- Overall, these TDocs highlight technical differences in the RF requirements for the introduction of 4Rx at lower frequency bands, such as the need for new signalling to optimize downlink process and eliminate the need for different UE types to have different RF requirements. They also propose different specifications to address these differences, such as delta RIB,4R and ΔTRxSRS for below 1GHz bands and support for SRS antenna switching in FDD bands.

• TDoc R4-2305084 discusses the feasibility of supporting 4Rx in low bands (<1GHz) for handheld UE, with complexity and gain being UE implementation dependent. The efficiency results for supporting 4Rx in low bands may not be satisfactory under some typical design conditions. (Source: "Supporting 4Rx in low bands may be feasible at least for some handheld UE and complexity might be high or gain might be low for some other UE which is UE implementation dependent. Though the design and simulation may not that optimized, the efficiency results are comparable and similar to previous results in [4], showing that the efficiency may not that satisfactory at least under some typical design.")

• Option 1 in TDoc R4-2305084 doesn't need to specify reasons below. Antenna simulation is done based on a certain design for band n28 in Table 1. The efficiency results in [5] showed larger efficiencies and more satisfactory performance. Related discussion can be found in [6]. (Source: "All the requested lower bands currently are FDD bands in the WID, and SRS antenna switching is designed for TDD bands. Some new antenna simulation is done based on certain design for band n28 as shown in Table 1. By comparison, the results in [5] showed a set of much larger efficiencies, and also some other more satisfactory performance. Some other related discussion are included in [6].")

• TDoc R4-2305744 suggests further investigating ΔRIB,4R for the bands in Table 4.1-1 [3]. It also notes that maintaining good isolation between RF traces in a smaller form factor, for frequencies <1GHz, could be challenging and may degrade TRP/TRS performance of 4Rx/3TX. (Source: "However, as previously mentioned, the smaller form factor of handsets (compared to FWA) may increase the design challenge, e.g., higher coupling between RF traces. The already specified ΔRIB,4R for n8, n28, n71, n105, targeting FWA [5] is a good starting point for the bands listed in the WID We, therefore, suggest the ΔRIB,4R for the bands in Table 4.1-1 [3] to be further investigated. We have made one observation and proposal: Observation 1 TRP/TRS performance of 4RX/3TX is expected to be more degraded due to the below-1GHz-operation. Maintaining good isolation between RF traces in a smaller form factor, for frequencies <1GHz, could be challenging.")

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.29.3 : Enhancements of 3Tx for band combinations with two bands

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.29.3.1 : Tx requirements for band combinations with 3Tx

Technical differences among the TDocs:

1. TDoc R4-2304351 proposes the addition of new clauses and sub-clauses to enable simultaneous 3Tx feature for inter-band UL CA, while specifying the transmitter power for the same.

Example snippet: "it is proposed to add the following new clauses and the corresponding sub-clauses succeeding the clauses for intra-band UL contiguous CA with UL MIMO as summarized in Table 2-1"

2. TDoc R4-2305085 discusses proposals for handheld UE with 3Tx, suggesting the explicit enablement of 3Tx operation for certain band combinations and power classes, as well as exploring the applicable requirement differences between FWA and handheld UE.

Example snippet: "it is suggested to explicitly enable 3Tx operation for certain band combination for certain power class via adding new note to Table 6.2A.1.3-1 of 38.101-1 and Table 6.2B.1.3-1 for 38.101-3"

3. TDoc R4-2305133 studies the applicable requirements for handheld UE, particularly for inter-band UL CA or inter-band EN-DC with UL MIMO, but does not include normative work in Rel-18. It also mentions the possibility of including some concurrent 3Tx inter-band ENDC requirements under the "inter-band EN-DC within FR1" subclause.

Example snippet: "clarify the applicable requirements for the band which support UL MIMO in inter-band UL CA or inter-band EN-DC"

4. TDoc proposes compliance with Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) regulations for UE with a maximum transmit power of 1.5 W/kg.

Example snippet: "Increase UE power high limit feature is not included In addition, several inter-band UL CA and ENDC band combination, where except for the lower constituent band, the another constituent band is UL-MIMO band supports 2Tx. For concurrent 3Tx inter-band ENDC"

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.29.3.2 : Rx requirements for band combinations with 3Tx

Technical Differences Among TDoc R4-2305134 and R4-2305292:

1. TDoc R4-2305134 specifies requirements for 3Tx and clarifies applicable requirements for bands that support UL MIMO in inter-band UL CA or inter-band EN-DC. It also includes several inter-band UL CA and ENDC band combinations where, except for the lower constituent band, the other constituent band is a UL-MIMO band that supports 2Tx. TDoc R4-2305292, on the other hand, discusses how to define MSD requirements for PC2 inter-band CA/DC with 3Tx.

Example from TDoc R4-2305134: "In this contribution, we give some further discussions on the Rx RF requirements for 3Tx inter-band UL CA/ENDC band combination, where one of the constituent band supports UL MIMO."

2. TDoc R4-2305134 does not include the increase UE power high limit feature, while TDoc R4-2305292 proposes reusing the same MSD requirements for 3Tx as those for 2Tx if PC2 is already introduced for the corresponding inter-band CA and EN-DC band combination.

Example from TDoc R4-2305292: "Proposal 1: if PC2 is already introduced for the corresponding inter-band CA and EN-DC band combination with 2Tx, the same MSD requirements could be reused for 3Tx."

3. TDoc R4-2305134 discusses the RF architecture (RFFE RF components) for PC2 inter-band UL CA/ENDC band combination supporting concurrent 2Tx and 3Tx, while TDoc R4-2305292 explains how to define MSD requirements for PC1.5 and PC2 band combinations with 3Tx in the WID UL configuration.

Example from TDoc R4-2305134: "For PC2 inter-band UL CA/ENDC band combination supporting concurrent 2Tx and 3Tx, the RF architecture(RFFE RF components)would be the same, which means the same ΔTIB,c /ΔRIB,c requirements could be applied."

Example from TDoc R4-2305292: "Table 1, Summary on how to define MSD requirements the example PC2 band combinations with 3Tx in the WID UL configuration Power class Existing MSD requirement MSD for 3Tx CA_n28A-n41A PC3@n28 1Tx; PC2@n41 2Tx; CA power class PC2."

4. TDoc R4-2305134 aims to study applicable requirements for handheld UE but does not include any normative work in Rel-18, while TDoc R4-2305292 proposes using the same MSD requirements for 3Tx as those for 2Tx if PC2 is already introduced for the corresponding inter-band CA and EN-DC band combination.

Example from TDoc R4-2305134: "Study the applicable requirements for handheld UE but no normative work in Rel-18."

Overall, TDoc R4-2305134 focuses on specifying requirements and discussing RF architecture for inter-band UL CA/ENDC band combinations with 3Tx, while TDoc R4-2305292 proposes reusing MSD requirements for 3Tx as those for 2Tx and provides examples of how to define MSD requirements for different power classes and band combinations.

1. DL CA combination with Rx harmonic mixing issue:
- UL aggressor in TDD band can be either 1Tx or 2Tx of the same power class except for PC1.5
- RAN4 has never differentiated the MSD requirement based on either 1Tx or 2Tx implementation
- Proposal 1: For FDD-TDD configuration with Rx harmonic mixing issue, the existing MSD requirements under the same TDD band power class can be reused for the same combination with 3Tx, and no new requirement would need to be specified. All other combinations are proposed as PC2.
- TDoc R4-2304352

2. UE capability for 3Tx transmission in 2 bands:
- Whether a new UE capability for 3Tx transmission in 2 bands is needed
- Whether 3Tx capable UE can support Tx switching feature
- For first issue, though the requirements could be different from 3T and 2T, e.g. MSD, we see no obvious benefit to report a new UE capability for UE supporting 3Tx for a 2-band combination.
- TDoc R4-2305565

3. MSD mechanisms for certain band combinations:
- For certain band combinations, due to additional paths for non-linearity products, some MSD mechanisms should be re-evaluated.
- For harmonic mixing, as illustrated in Figure 2, additional harmonic paths should also be considered for 2Tx implementation.
- As illustrated in Figure 1~3 in section 2.1, we didn’t see big difference for the IL for the RF component to support 3Tx, thus, the same delta Tib and Rib for 2Tx of the same band combination can be reused.
- TDoc R4-2305565 and TDoc R4-2304352

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.30.1 : General and work plan

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.30.2 : UE RF requirements and related transmission schemes

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.30.2.1 : CA configuration of CA_n5-n8

- There are two proposed solutions for system performance aspect, with solution 2 being preferred for network schedule flexibility.
- The UE capabilities for options 1 and 2 are different, with option 1 only supporting single UL and UL limited in n5, while option 2 can support 2UL/2DL but only non-concurrent n5 DL and n8 UL.
- UE RF requirements are different for options 1 and 2, with full band RF filter for 1UL/2UL for option 2 and dedicated RF filter for both 1UL and 2UL for option 1.
- Specifying requirements for all three UE options is not preferred as it may fragment the device ecosystem and make deployment more challenging.
- RRC reconfiguration is not a good solution to switch dynamically between “n5+n8 UL/n8DL” and “n5 UL/n5+n8DL”.
- UE capability to allow/disallow concurrent n8 UL/n5 DL is needed if option 2 is specified.
- For CA_n5A-n8A, option 1 is the most straightforward, and option 3 is easier among options 2 and 3.
- The feasibility of non-simultaneous n5 DL + n8 UL is studied, and there may be potential RAN2 impact observed to enable 2UL with non-concurrent n5 DL and n8 UL.
- An additional UE capability can be defined to indicate whether the UE supports simultaneous transmission and reception in FDD-FDD inter-band NR CA.
- Proposal 4 suggests adding country or region information in notes to make the specification more future-proof.

Example snippets from the TDoc:

- "From system performance aspect, keeping solution 2 brings more benefit for the network schedule flexibility." (TDoc R4-2304435)
- "Option 1 UE: doesn’t support 2UL/2DL at all, only support single UL and UL is limited in n5." (TDoc R4-2304435)
- "UE RF requirements are defined based on the dedicated RF filter for both 1UL (both n5 UL and n8 UL are supported) and 2UL." (TDoc R4-2304435)
- "Specifying requirements for all three options is not preferred as it would likely fragment device ecosystem and make deployment of the feature more challenging." (TDoc R4-2304454)
- "RRC reconfiguration is not a good solution to switch very dynamically between “n5+n8 UL/n8DL” and “n5 UL/n5+n8DL”" (TDoc R4-2304454)
- "Proposal 1: Introduce one new UE capability to indicate whether to allow simultaneous operation or not for FDD-FDD band combination." (TDoc R4-2305253)
- "Proposal 4: It is proposed to add country or region information in notes to make specification more future-proof." (TDoc R4-2305253)

Technical differences between TDoc R4-2305131 and TDoc R4-2305152:

1. Overall focus: TDoc R4-2305131 focuses on discussing the feasibility of non-simultaneous n5 DL + n8 UL with the existing specifications, while TDoc R4-2305152 discusses options for solving the overlap for CA_n5-n8.
Example from TDoc R4-2305131: "For NR CA n5-n8 band combination, RAN4 discussed some high level implementations in the study item, and the conclusion are shown as below."
Example from TDoc R4-2305152: "In this contribution, we discuss the options for solving the overlap for CA_n5-n8 and have the following proposals."

2. Proposal focus: TDoc R4-2305131 proposes to send LS to RAN2 to study the feasibility of non-simultaneous n5 DL + n8 UL with the existing specifications, while TDoc R4-2305152 proposes down selecting Option 1 and Option 2 for full band filter as optional solution for UL CA n5-n8.
Example from TDoc R4-2305131: "It is time to send LS to RAN2 to study the feasibility of non-simultaneous n5 DL + n8 UL with the existing specifications."
Example from TDoc R4-2305152: "Proposal 1: Option 1 and Option 2 for full band filter shall be down selected as optional solution for UL CA n5-n8."

3. Coverage and capacity focus: TDoc R4-2305152 provides a comparison between UL, DL, and CA in coverage and capacity requirements for large ISD macro BS scenario.
Example from TDoc R4-2305152: "Table 1: Comparison between UL, DL, and CA in coverage and capacity Requirements for large ISD macro BS scenario."

4. RF architecture focus: TDoc R4-2305131 discusses General Option 2 full band n5 and n8 RF filters implementation, while TDoc R4-2305152 mentions different RF architecture requirements.
Example from TDoc R4-2305131: "5.1.3.0 General Option 2 full band n5 and n8 RF filters implementation can support both DL_n8_UL_n5-n8 and DL_n5-n8_UL_n5 features."
Example from TDoc R4-2305152: "[1], in which the requirements include different RF architecture without further converged. CA operation with the existing specifications."

5. Observation focus: TDoc R4-2305152 observes that UL CA within low frequency is quite necessary considering the UL capacity in some large coverage scenarios.
Example from TDoc R4-2305152: "Observation 1: UL CA within low frequency is quite necessary considering the UL capacity in some large coverage scenarios. Therefore, UL CA within low frequency is quite necessary considering the UL capacity in some large coverage scenarios."

- Observation 1: For CA_n5-n8 with 3-antenna implementation, simultaneous Rx/Tx between n5 DL and n8 UL can cause up to 40dB REFSENS degradation for n5. Therefore, non-simultaneous Rx/Tx is recommended for CA_n5-n8 dual UL operation.
- Proposal 1: The frequency range restriction of the band combination should not be used as an RF multiplexer implementation guideline, as the filter design should accommodate full-range operation for all constituent bands.
- Proposal 5: The proposed triplexer in CA_n5-n8 UE reference architecture needs to ensure sufficient isolation between each constituent band's UL and DL to avoid REFSENS degradation, except for additional insertion loss. Therefore, there may not be a feasible filter to isolate n5 DL and n8 UL.
- Proposal on CA_n5-n8 1UL REFSENS exceptions: The n5 MSD is based on evaluation during the study phase and only applies to a n5 DL channel in the restricted frequency range. The band combination definition is valid without any frequency range restriction for BCS0. For BSC1, only the n8 UL frequency range is restricted, and a dedicated filter implementing only the restricted n8 UL bandwidth is supported by the specification to enable 2UL configuration.
- Baseline and optional architecture: Company proposed to reuse the DC_28_n5 ΔTIB,c and ΔRIB,c values with an additional 0.2dB to enable the two-antenna n-plexers in the future, including support for full band n28. MSD due to cross band isolation for CA_n5-n28 is specified in the spec TS 38.101-1.
- Observation 3: To adopt a specific configuration for MSD due to cross band interference from two UL bands for CA_n5-n28, assuming 30MHz channel bandwidth in band n28.

Example snippets from the original TDoc:
- "For CA_n5-n8 with 3-antenna implementation, under simultaneous Rx/Tx between n5 DL and n8 UL, the n5 REFSENS degradation can be as high as 40 dB." (Observation 1)
- "The proposed triplexer in CA_n5-n8 UE reference architecture needs to ensure sufficient isolation between each constituent band’s UL and DL such that REFSENS degradation would not be caused by Tx self-interference in single-band operation except by the additional insertion loss." (Proposal 5)
- "I think the additional 0.2dB for TIB,c and ∆RIB,c values can be acceptable to enable the two-antenna n-plexers in the future." (Baseline and optional architecture)
- "To adopt the following configuration for MSD due to cross band interference from two UL bands for CA_n5-n28 assuming 30MHz channel bandwidth in band n28." (Observation 3)

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.30.2.2 : CA configuration of CA_n5-n28

TDoc R4-2304564:

- A new table is created in 38.101-1: 7.3A.6-2 for reference sensitivity exceptions (MSD) and uplink/downlink configurations due to cross band isolation from a PC3 2UL inter-band UL configuration.
- For reference sensitivity exceptions due to combined 2UL cross band isolation, each UL is set to PUmax-3dB like for the 2UL IMD tests.
- The MSD value is on top of the victim band 5MHz REFSENS scaled to the DL channel bandwidth in the test point.
- Based on the averaging of the two contributions during SI phase, including ours, the following MSD Table is used for the 38.101-1 requirement in Table 7.3A.6-1: Table 3: REFSENS exceptions due to cross-band interference for CA_n5-n28.
- Proposal on CA_n5n28 2UL REFSENS exceptions: Based on the average of the two contributions and our data for the same test point in [3], the following MSD Table is used for the 38.101-1 requirement.

Example snippet from TDoc R4-2304564: "For Reference sensitivity exceptions due to combined 2UL cross band isolation, each UL is set PUmax-3dB like for the 2UL IMD tests."

Example snippet from TDoc R4-2304564: "Based on the averaging of the two contributions during SI phase, including ours, the following MSD Table is used for the 38.101-1 requirement in Table 7.3A.6-1: Table 3: REFSENS exceptions due to cross-band interference for CA_n5-n28."

TDoc R4-2305132:

- The requirements for the band combination defined in the specifications should be implementation agnostic.
- The 1UL/2DL cross-band isolation MSD requirements, which are more stringent than the existing requirements, are included in the SID TR.
- The TIB,c and RIB,c requirements, which are more stringent than the existing requirements, are included in the SID TR for 2 antenna implementation.
- The requirements for 1UL cross-band isolation MSD in the SID TR38.872 are based on the agreed CR R4-2206134, and one MSD test configuration (n28 30MHz) can be a reference considering the impacts from band n5 UL.
- The 2UL cross-band isolation MSD requirements include the total interference from both 1UL n5 ACLR2 and.

Example snippet from TDoc R4-2305132: "The requirements for the band combination defined in the specifications should be implementation agnostic."

Example snippet from TDoc R4-2305132: "The TIB,c and RIB,c requirements, which are more stringent than the existing requirements, are included in the SID TR for 2 antenna implementation."

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.30.2.3 : CA configuration of CA_n8-n20-n28

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.31.1 : General and work plan

Technical differences among the TDoc include:

1. Introduction of NR technology in unlicensed spectrum: TDoc R4-2304320 discusses how NR technology can be used on unlicensed spectrum, providing more resources in frequency bands such as 5GHz and 6GHz. This is a new development in Rel-16 NR-U WI [1].

2. Regulatory updates for new countries: TDoc R4-2304320 and TDoc R4-2304940 both cover regulatory updates for new countries, such as the Russian Federation. TDoc R4-2304320 presents an updated summary of NS values in Table 2-1, including new countries and NS values. TDoc R4-2304940 provides a summary of regulatory requirements.

3. Re-use of NS flags for LPI and VLP operation: Proposal 2 in TDoc R4-2304320 suggests that for LPI and VLP operation in the Russian Federation, the same NS flags as for Kenya can be re-used. This proposal is repeated twice in the TDoc.

4. Enhancements to shared spectrum bands: TDoc R4-2304940 references RP-222174 and Apple R4-2214953, which discuss enhancements to NR shared spectrum bands.

5. LS on extending the maximum range for NS values: TDoc R4-2304320 references draft CR for TR 38.849 with associated A-MPR values [4], as well as LS responses from RAN WG4 (RAN4 R2-2211064) and RAN2 (RAN2 R4-2220493 and R4-2304016) on extending the maximum range for NS values. RAN2 respectfully asks RAN4 if they are okay with reusing the modifiedMPR-Behavior capability for indicating UE capability in supporting the extended range of NS values.

Example snippets from the original TDoc supporting these differences include:

- "3GPP Rel-16 NR-U WI [1] specified how the NR technology can be used on the unlicensed spectrum thus offering more resources in frequency bands, such as 5GHz and 6GHz." (TDoc R4-2304320)
- "After the TSG RAN#99 meeting another regulatory updated was submitted for TR 37.890 covering new countries, such as Russian Federation." (TDoc R4-2304320)
- "Proposal 2: For the LPI and VLP operation in Russian Federation, same NS flags as for Kenya can be re-used." (TDoc R4-2304320)
- "References RP-222174, Enhancements of NR shared spectrum bands, Apple R4-2214953, LS on extending the maximum range for NS values from RAN WG4, RAN4 R2-2211064, Response to LS on extending the maximum range for NS values, RAN2 R4-2220493, Response LS on extending the maximum range for NS values, RAN4 R4-2304016, Response LS on extending the maximum range for NS values, RAN2 Response LS on extending the maximum range for NS values (R4-2304016)." (TDoc R4-2304940)
- "ACTION: RAN2 respectfully asks RAN4 if they are ok with the above RAN2 directions, and on the aspect of reusing the 8-bit modifiedMPR-Behavior capability for the support of the extended range of NS values 3. RAN4 shall respond to RAN2 that the existing modifiedMPR-Behavior capability can be re-used for indicating UE capability in supporting the extended range of NS values (i.e. NR-NS-ExtendedList)." (TDoc R4-2304016)

1. TDoc R4-2304324 specifies the mapping of NR frequency band numbers and values of additionalSpectrumEmission to network signalling labels.
Example snippet: "The mapping of NR frequency band numbers and values of the additionalSpectrumEmission to network signalling labels is specified in Table 6.2F.3.1-1A."

2. Table 6.2F.3.1-1 in TDoc R4-2304324 specifies additional maximum power reduction (A-MPR) requirements for each NS value and the applicable operating bands.
Example snippet: "Table 6.2F.3.1-1 specifies the additional requirements with their associated network signalling values and the allowed A-MPR and applicable operating band(s) for each NS value."

3. Each additional emission requirement is associated with a unique network signalling (NS) value indicated in RRC signalling by an NR frequency band number and an associated value in the field additionalSpectrumEmission.
Example snippet: "Each additional emission requirement is associated with a unique network signalling (NS) value indicated in RRC signalling by an NR frequency band number of the applicable operating band and an associated value in the field additionalSpectrumEmission."

4. To meet the additional requirements, additional maximum power reduction (A-MPR) is allowed for the maximum output power as specified in Table 6.2F.1-1.
Example snippet: "To meet the additional requirements, additional maximum power reduction (A-MPR) is allowed for the maximum output power as specified in Table 6.2F.1-1."

5. The notion of indication or signalling of an NS value refers to the corresponding indication of an NR frequency band number and an associated value of additionalSpectrumEmission in the relevant RRC information elements.
Example snippet: "Throughout this specification, the notion of indication or signalling of an NS value refers to the corresponding indication of an NR frequency band number of the applicable operating band and an associated value of additionalSpectrumEmission in the relevant RRC information elements [7]."

6. TDoc R4-2304325 specifies the NS_01 label with the field additionalPmax.
Example snippet: "The NS_01 label with the field additionalPmax [TDoc R4-2304325]:"

7. TDoc R4-2304325 also specifies the mapping of NR frequency band numbers and values of additionalSpectrumEmission to network signalling labels in Table 6.2F.3.1-1A.
Example snippet: "The mapping of NR frequency band numbers and values of the additionalSpectrumEmission to network signalling labels is specified in Table 6.2F.3.1-1A."

Overall, the technical differences between TDoc R4-2304324 and TDoc R4-2304325 seem to be related to the specific network signalling labels and values associated with additional emission requirements. TDoc R4-2304325 focuses on the NS_01 label with the additionalPmax field, while TDoc R4-2304324 provides a more general overview of the mapping of NR frequency band numbers and additionalSpectrumEmission values to network signalling labels.

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.31.2 : Common requirements (channel raster, A-MPR for 100MHz CBW)

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.31.3 : UE RF requirements for SP and LPI

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.32.1 : General and work plan

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.32.2 : Band definition and system parameters

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.32.3 : UE RF requirements

Proposal 8 suggests defining the UE maximum output power in Table 2.6-1 for the NTN FDD band with a UE transmitting at 1610-1626.5MHz and SAN transmitting at 2483.5-2500MHz.

Example snippet from TDoc R4-2304794: "the UE maximum output power should be defined as Table 2.6-1."

Proposal 6 suggests defining the synchronization raster in Table 2.4-1 for the NTN FDD band with a UE transmitting at 1610-1626.5MHz and SAN transmitting at 2483.5-2500MHz.

Example snippet from TDoc R4-2304794: "the synchronization raster should be defined as Table 2.4-1."

Proposal 3 suggests defining the UE channel bandwidth per operating band in Table 2.2-1 for the NTN FDD band with a UE transmitting at 1610-1626.5MHz and SAN transmitting at 2483.5-2500MHz.

Example snippet from TDoc R4-2304794: "the UE channel bandwidth per operating band should be defined as Table 2.2-1."

Proposal 7 suggests defining the TX-RX frequency separation in Table 2.5-1 for the NTN FDD band with a UE transmitting at 1610-1626.5MHz and SAN transmitting at 2483.5-2500MHz.

Example snippet from TDoc R4-2304794: "the TX-RX frequency separation should be defined as Table 2.5-1."

Proposal 5 suggests defining the NR-ARFCN in Table 2.3-1 for the NTN FDD band with a UE transmitting at 1610-1626.5MHz and SAN transmitting at 2483.5-2500MHz.

Example snippet from TDoc R4-2304794: "the NR-ARFCN should be defined as Table 2.3-1."

Table 5.2.2-1 in TDoc R4-2304795 defines the NTN satellite bands in FR1 for operating bands with conducted requirements.

Table 5.3.5-1 in TDoc R4-2304795 defines the channel bandwidths for each NTN satellite band.

Table 5.4.2.3-1 in TDoc R4-2304795 provides the applicable NR-ARFCN per operating band for channel raster entries, with the channel raster to resource element mapping in clause 5.4.2.2.

Table 5.4.3.3-1 in TDoc R4-2304795 provides the synchronization raster entries for each operating band.

Overall, the proposals suggest defining various technical aspects such as maximum output power, synchronization raster, UE channel bandwidth, TX-RX frequency separation, and NR-ARFCN for the NTN FDD band with a UE transmitting at 1610-1626.5MHz and SAN transmitting at 2483.5-2500MHz. The TDocs also provide tables that define the NTN satellite bands, channel bandwidths, NR-ARFCN, and synchronization raster entries for each operating band.

Technical differences among the TDoc snippets can be summarized as follows:

1. Out-of-band blocking requirements:
- TDoc R4-2304331 proposes that existing band n53 out-of-band blocking requirements (with the changed upper edge to 2500MHz) can be applied to the new NTN band.
- TDoc R4-2305392 proposes to relax -20dBm out-of-band blocking requirements between 2580 MHz and 2775 MHz, but only after analyzing and investigating the duplexer performance.

Example from TDoc R4-2304331: "There exist out-of-band blocking requirements for the terrestrial band n53 defined for almost the same frequency range as the new NTN band."

2. Emission requirements:
- TDoc R4-2304331 mentions several regulatory documents that provide emission limits for the frequency ranges outside operational band of 1610-1626.5MHz.
- TDoc R4-2304331 proposes that existing in-band blocking requirements can be applied to the new NTN band.
- TDoc R4-2305392 proposes to specify additional emission requirements (-50dBm/MHz coexistence requirements to protect band n255) only after analyzing the duplexer performance.

Example from TDoc R4-2304331: "In addition to the out-of-band emission requirements, at least ETSI regulations also define in-band emission limits..."

3. Duplexer performance:
- TDoc R4-2305392 emphasizes the need to analyze and investigate the duplexer performance before specifying additional emission requirements.
- TDoc R4-2305392 proposes to relax out-of-band blocking requirements only after providing the technical performance of duplexer to further analyze the attenuation when AMPR requirements are derived.

Example from TDoc R4-2305392: "As the protected regions are very close to the UL frequency range 1610~1626.5MHz, it’s better to provide the technical performance of duplexer to further analyze the attenuation..."

Overall, the technical differences among the TDoc snippets highlight the importance of analyzing and investigating the duplexer performance before specifying emission and blocking requirements for the new NTN band. The proposed solutions in both TDocs aim to protect other bands from interference while ensuring efficient use of the frequency spectrum.

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.32.4 : SAN RF requirements

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 4.32.5 : RRM requirements

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 5.1.2 : Simplification of working procedure

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 5.1.3 : Simplification of specification and reduction of test burden

Technical Differences:

1. Simplification of 38.101-1 specification Table 6.5A.3.2.3-1 for uplink inter-band carrier aggregation (two bands) in a similar manner as was done from LTE.
-Proposal to simplify the specification for reducing the test burden related to 2UL CA UE to UE co-ex requirement. (TDoc R4-2304039)

2. Text proposals for ENDC band combinations to align the MSD test configurations due to harmonic/harmonic mixing interference with NR CA specified in TS 38.101-1.
-Reference sensitivity exception due to harmonic/harmonic mixing specified for ENDC/NEDC band combinations, follow the same principles as for NR CA. (TDoc R4-2305381)

3. Migration of the EN-DC MSD test points due to cross-band isolation towards the Rel-17 NR-CA new table template requires re-evaluation of many maximum sensitivity degradation (MSD) levels.
-Proposed list of PC3 EN-DC test point candidates for MSD re-evaluation. (TDoc R4-2305748)

Example Snippets:

1. TDoc R4-2304039 proposes to simplify the specification for reducing the test burden related to 2UL CA UE to UE co-ex requirement, which can be done in a similar manner as was done from LTE.

2. TDoc R4-2305381 suggests following the same principles as for NR CA for reference sensitivity exception due to harmonic/harmonic mixing specified for ENDC/NEDC band combinations.

3. TDoc R4-2305748 re-evaluates the MSD levels due to cross-band isolation for the previously proposed EN-DC test points and proposes a list of PC3 EN-DC test point candidates for MSD re-evaluation.

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 5.1.4 : Others

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 5.2.1 : General and work plan

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 5.2.2 : Investigation of mmWave multi-band BS

TDoc R4-2304628:

- The difference between single input and dual input of stacked patch multi-band antenna is small from an antenna performance perspective.
- Both types could achieve 4 to 5dBi element gain.
- The simulation result shows antenna gain of both stacked patch antenna elements, and >4dBi gain achieved including frequency roll-off.
- Interleaved array structures are shown as an architecture to cover a very wide frequency range and both types support dual polarization.

TDoc R4-2304633:

- The difference between single input and dual input of stacked patch multi-band antenna is small from an antenna performance perspective.
- Both types could achieve 4 to 5dBi element gain.
- The simulation result shows antenna gain of both stacked patch antenna elements, and >4dBi gain achieved including frequency roll-off.
- Interleaved array structures are shown as an architecture to cover a very wide frequency range and both types support dual polarization.

TDoc R4-2305681:

- High-level configurations of implementation options to support multiple FR2-1 bands have not been covered to illustrate additional feasibility considerations.
- Table 1 summarizes feasibility aspects for the four configuration options considering performance, integration, and packaging impact.
- The agreements above focus the feasibility assessments of this study to scenarios supporting multiple FR2-1 bands by using common active RF components.

TDoc R4-2304627 and TDoc R4-2304632 propose text into TR 38.877 to capture the aspect regarding wideband antenna architectures in FR2-1 multi-band BS at 3GPP TSG-RAN WG4 Meeting # 106-bis-e. The only difference between these two TDocs is their source, where TDoc R4-2304627 is sourced from the Huawei HiSilicon WF and TDoc R4-2304632 is sourced from the Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TDoc R4-2305301 references several research papers that discuss different aspects of phased-array antenna technology for 5G applications. The referenced papers cover topics like dual-band dual-polarized microstrip antenna arrays, phased-array receive beamformers, and dual-band dual-beam 5G phased-arrays.

Overall, the technical differences between the TDocs are not significant since they all focus on discussing the use of wideband antenna architectures in multi-band BS for 5G applications. However, the references used in TDoc R4-2305301 provide more specific details about the latest research and development in phased-array antenna technology.

h2>Technical Differences Between TDoc R4-2304118 and R4-2305682

Antenna Design:

- TDoc R4-2304118 discusses three ways to achieve solutions covering multiple bands from an antenna design perspective: a single broadband design, an antenna with multiple resonances in desired bands, or separate antenna designs for each band.
- The document notes that fixed antenna arrays have more flexibility on element separation, which can be up to 0.9λ as the grating lobe is also fixed and can be attenuated with the element pattern.
- It is also mentioned that the array is electrically shorter at lower frequencies than higher frequencies, which affects antenna directivity and gain.
- TDoc R4-2304118 emphasizes that any specification should not preclude a potential future architecture based on frequency dependent phase shifters.

Interface Bandwidth and Latency:

- TDoc R4-2305682 mentions that the digital transport latency may impact radio near algorithms such as DPD and CFR, potentially affecting transmitter and receiver performance.
- The document suggests that reducing data volume (e.g. by reducing sampling resolution) would lead to similar considerations as for ADC and DAC on meeting requirements such as EVM, emissions, RX dynamic range, and demodulation.
- The architecture, RF performance, and power consumption of the analog/digital interface would be key considerations in an implementation.
- ADC and DAC complexity and power consumption could be reduced by decreasing sampling resolution, but this would impact TX factors such as EVM and emissions and RX factors such as dynamic range and RX EVM.
- Potentially, only the in-band spectrum could be generated by separate converters.

Examples from TDoc R4-2304118:

- "It can be noted for comparison that there are FR1 multi-band fixed antenna arrays covering 1710MHz to 2690MHz, with a FBW of 44.5% (VSWR of < 1.5:1)."
- "Fixed antenna arrays (with no or limited beam steering) however have more flexibility on element separation with values of up to 0.9λ being acceptable as the grating lobe is also fixed and can be attenuated with the element pattern."
- "In addition to the physical limitations and grating lobe performance discussed, it should also be noted that the array is electrically shorter at lower frequencies than higher frequencies and this also affects the antenna directivity and gain."
- "However, any specification should not preclude a potential future architecture based on frequency dependent phase shifters."

Examples from TDoc R4-2305682:

- "This may impact the feasibility of the multi-band solution, although since TX power and RX sensitivity are subject to declarations it may not impact the requirements definition."
- "Reducing the data volume (e.g. by reducing the sampling resolution) would lead to similar considerations as for ADC and DAC on meeting requirements such as EVM, emissions, RX dynamic range and demodulation."
- "In addition to the interface bandwidth, the digital transport latency may also impact radio near algorithms (such as DPD, CFR) and could impact the performance of the transmitter and receiver."
- "This could impact the feasibility of meeting TX EVM and RX selectivity, blocking and demodulation requirements."
- "The ADC and DAC complexity and power consumption could be reduced by reducing the sampling resolution, but this would impact TX factors such as EVM and emissions and RX factors such as dynamic range and RX EVM."

TDoc R4-2304711:

- The term "percentage bandwidth" is introduced to extend the concept of fractional bandwidth to multiple operating bands.
- The latest version of TR 38.877 uses both "fractional bandwidth" and "percentage bandwidth" for the same content, causing confusion.
- "Fractional bandwidth" refers to a bandwidth within an operating band, while "percentage bandwidth" is proposed for multi-band BS.
- Text proposals are provided to clarify the definition of percentage bandwidth and avoid confusion.
- Reference TDoc R4-2304712 provides a text proposal for DPD sections in TR38.877.

Example snippets from TDoc R4-2304711:

- "Percentage bandwidth" is a new term to extend the concept of the fractional bandwidth applicable to a bandwidth which may spread over multiple operating bands.
- In the latest version of TR 38.877, the terms "fractional bandwidth" and "percentage bandwidth" are used for the same content.
- "Fractional bandwidth" is a term which has been used in RAN4 specifications for a bandwidth within an operating band.
- For TR 38.877 discusses multi-band BS, we propose to replace "fractional bandwidth" in TR 38.877 with "percentage bandwidth".
- Text proposal to TR 38.877 is provided below.

TDoc R4-2304712:

- This contribution provides corrections to the text in DPD sections in TR38.877.
- Sub-clause 5.2.2.1 discusses DPD for single-band BS, while 5.2.2.2 discusses DPD for multi-band BS.
- Corrections are proposed for better readability and to correct the sub-clause title for 5.2.2.1.

Example snippets from TDoc R4-2304712:

- This contribution provides text proposals to correct the text in DPD sections in TR38.877.
- Although sub-clause title for 5.2.2.2 clearly indicates above, sub-clause title for 5.2.2.1 does not.
- Following corrections are proposed.
- It is recommended to correct the sub-clause title for 5.2.2.1.

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 5.3.1 : General and work plan

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 5.3.2 : Test methods for RF/RRM/Demodulation requirements

Technical Differences Between TDoc R4-2305696 and TDoc R4-2305786:

TDoc R4-2305696:
- Describes a non-parametric test approach for UE functionality based on RF core requirements WF and directionality between 2AoAs.
- Results for each antenna pair are used to derive the final test results.
- All polarization combinations provide a pass.
- Does not discuss specific parameters for tests like number of grid points, DL power or %ile of point that shall meet the minimum throughput.

Example from TDoc R4-2305696: "The agreements in last RF core requirements WF [3] with regards to the type of metric as summarized in Observation 1, but also agreement to test the directionality between the 2AoA, lead to several changes and simplifications of this procedure."

TDoc R4-2305786:
- Provides multi-AoA non-parametric spherical coverage test time estimates for various number of polarization combinations and AoA2 probes.
- Proposes to take test time into account when making further decisions in test parameters.
- Proposes a theta-dependent correction for FR2 multi-Rx testing based on probability contributions instead of pass/fail verdicts.
- Proposes defining a single permitted DUT orientation/alignment option for FR2 multi-Rx testing.

Example from TDoc R4-2305786: "Given the vast differences in test time in Table 1Table 2 based on the various test parameters (test approach, number of polarization combinations, number of AoA2 probes/directions), it is proposed to take the test time into account when making further decisions in test parameters."

- Proposal 3 suggests that the procedure to characterize the quality of the quiet zone for IFF can be reused for IFF based multi-AoA test system.
- Table 4.2.1-1 provides information on the testable SNR with different X values.
- RAN4 needs to decide on acceptable testable SINR for multi-Rx demodulation testing and evaluate the coverage percentage of two AoAs pair that can pass legacy REFSENSE requirements with XdB degradation per branch.
- Minimum isolation requirements of 12dB can be reused for all active branches for multi-Rx UE demodulation testing.
- Simulation results show that the UE performance for different polarization combinations is different even under the same AoA separation and UE orientations.
- For practical antenna modules, there is a difference in performance between different polarizations, especially when metal blockage needs to be considered.
- The test configuration should align with the requirement assumption to avoid unnecessary test cases.
- For multi-Rx verification, the polarization pair can be reduced to (TRP1θ, TRP2θ) and (TRP1φ, TRP2φ) to minimize inter-TRP interference.

Supporting examples from the TDoc include: "The procedure to characterize the quality of the quiet zone for IFF defied in clause D2, TR 38810 can be reused for IFF based multi-AoA test system. The details will be discussed in the following clauses." and "With the same motivation as minimum isolation requirements defined in legacy FR2 demodulation testing, the minimum isolation requirements of 12dB could be reused for all the active branches for multi-Rx UE demodulation testing."

• TDoc R4-2304825 discusses the limit polarization combinations for UE RF requirement derivation based on worst-case polarization match between the two TRPs. Option 1 with same DL polarization is considered more stringent for demodulation, while option 2 with crossed DL polarization may provide channel orthogonality and be a more friendly condition for UE.

Example from TDoc R4-2304825: "Based on agreement in both RF session and OTA session, only worst case of polarization combination need to be verified to limit the downlink polarization combinations, in our view, the worst case can be Option 1."

• TDoc R4-2305497 discusses the difficulty of guaranteeing simultaneous reception for the DUT in TCI switching case from dual TCI to dual TCI. Non-overlapping and overlapping cases need to be considered separately for multi-DCI, and interference between the two AOAs can be ignored in the case of non-overlapping.

Example from TDoc R4-2305497: "For multi-DCI with non-overlapping, the interference between the two AOAs can be ignored. For multi-DCI, the two case including non-overlapping and overlapping need to be considered separately."

• TDoc R4-2304825 discusses the need for UE with the ability of joint detect/decode, especially for single DCI capable UE.

Example from TDoc R4-2304825: "However, there should be UE with the ability of “joint detect/decode” especially for single DCI capable UE, in this case, Option 1 with same DL polarization can be considered as more stringent condition for demodulation."

• TDoc R4-2305497 discusses the observation that interference between the two AOAs seems to be ignored in the case of non-overlapping for multi-DCI with TCI switching from dual TCI to dual TCI.

Example from TDoc R4-2305497: "Observation 2: For TCI switching case from dual TCI to dual TCI, it is difficult to guarantee that there are two pair of AoAs each of which can support simultaneous reception for the DUT. Because non-overlapping means fully/partially overlapping PDSCHs in time and non-overlapping in frequency based on the multiDCI-MultiTRP-r16 shown below, the interference between the two AOAs seems to be ignored."

• TDoc R4-2305497 proposes that multi-DCI with non-overlapping be considered separately from overlapped cases and suggests that interference between the two AOAs can be ignored in the case of non-overlapping.

Example from TDoc R4-2305497: "Propose 1: For multi-DCI with non-overlapping, the interference between the two AOAs can be ignored. For multi-DCI, the two case including non-overlapping and overlapping need to be considered separately."

• TDoc R4-2305497 discusses the remaining open issues related to the RF core part.

Example from TDoc R4-2305497: "According to the SR [2], the remaining open issues shown below are related to the RF core part."

3GPP-R4-106-bis-e    Agenda Item 5.4.1 : General and work plan