| Discussion and conclusion:
This LS was noted.
TD S2 160205 LS from CT WG1: LS on the usage of QCI in eMBMS traffic relay. (CT WG1)
Abstract: CT WG1 has discussed how an eMBMS traffic relay determines the ProSe Per Packet Priority value for the MBMS contents relayed over PC5. In Stage 2 TS 23.303, the following description was added about eMBMS traffic relay. For eMBMS traffic the ProSe UE-to-Network Relay uses the QCI and ProSe Per-Packet Priority that are requested for a specific TMGI by Remote UEs using PC5-S procedures to determine the ProSe Per-Packet Priority value to be applied for the multicast packets corresponding to that TMGI when they are relayed over PC5. This requires the remote UE to send the TMGI, corresponding QCI and requested ProSe Per-Packet Priority to the UE-to-network relay for determining the ProSe Per-Packet Priority used for eMBMS traffic relayed over PC5. CT WG1 has the following questions about the QCI usage: - Given that the QCI value was already used by remote UE to determine the requested ProSe Per-Packet Priority value, and there is no QCI to ProSe Per-Packet Priority mapping rules provisioned at the UE-to-network relay for downlink eMBMS traffic, how does the UE-to-network relay use the additional QCI value to determine the final ProSe Per-Packet Priority used for eMBMS traffic relayed over PC5, especially when the requesting UE(s) has/have already provided the requested PPPP value(s)? - According to subclause 5.4.4.4 of TS 23.303, the QCI value assigned to a specific TMGI is conveyed to remote UE(s) from the network in service description, thus the QCI value for a given TMGI should be identical in all TMGI monitoring requests. So it seems that the QCI is useless for the UE-to-network relay to determine the final ProSe Per-Packet Priority used for eMBMS traffic relayed over PC5. Hence, CT WG1 would kindly request SA WG2 to clarify the motivation for including the QCI in the TMGI monitoring request procedure.
Action: CT WG1 kindly asks SA WG2 to provide the clarification for above questions and update SA WG2 specification if required.
Convenors comment: No proposed reply; proposed to be postponed.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
