Minutes of the S2 meeting #14 4th to 8th of September 2000 Bristol, uk

Conclusion: Not approved.
S2-001418 from S3-000478: LS to S2 on use of IP for security key distribution

S2 should check that all the R00 CN elements support the IP protocol at least for communication with the Key Administration Centre.

Conclusion: Noted. To be kept in mind when further progressing the work.
S2-001419 from T2M000089: LS on VHE/OSA presentation

The answer was expected by 28^th of August.

Conclusion: S2 received this LS too late. Noted
S2-001422 from S1-000651: LS on Re-establish Capability for Emergency call

This CR to 22.101 proposes the capability for the emergency centre to re-establish an emergency call with the caller if the caller hang-up.

Discussion: There are some technical difficulties, most of them in the RAN area.

Conclusion: Proposed answer in S2-001520.
S2-001520 from Vodafone (Chris):

Proposed answer to S2-001422.

Conclusion: For e-mail approval.For e-mail approval (see the conclusion in table in annex).
S2-001424 from R2-001859: LS on Corrections to relocation procedures in 23.060 (on 23.060, cat F, R99)

R2 asks S2 to re-consider the text in 23.060 concerning SRNS relocation, on the basis of the studies they have done.

Discussion: It was not sure if routing has to be spelt “routing” or “routeing”.

The wording of “loss less SRNS relocation” is ambiguous.

The IMSI is removed in “SRNS Context Response” and the “PDCP-SND” has been added to align with R3 materials.

Conclusion: Revised CR in S2-001521.

Proposed LS back in S2-001522.

S2-001521 from Nokia: (on 23.060, CR 183, cat F, R99)

Revision of S2-001424

Conclusion: For e-mail approval.For e-mail approval (see the conclusion in table in annex).
S2-001522 from Nokia:

LS back to R2 (draft answer to 1424).

Conclusion: For e-mail approval.For e-mail approval (see the conclusion in table in annex).
S2-001425 from R2-001817: LS response to R3-002198 on Directed signalling connection re-establishment at RRC

R2 is replying to some specific questions from R3-002198 on the behaviour in the “forward handover” scenario without an Iur in Release ’99.

Discussion: In short, the answers to R2’s questions are “yes” and “no” respectively.