OMA-TP R01 1 Effective Collaboration Between 3GPP2 and OMA 3GPP2-OMA Workshop Maui, 13 December 2003 Alex Gogic, Mark Staskauskas, Source: QUALCOMM Inc.

OMA-TP R01 2 Outline Possible Benefits of Close Collaboration Between 3GPP2 and OMA Challenges to 3GPP2-OMA Cooperation Recommended Working Procedures Conclusions

OMA-TP R01 3 Collaboration Benefits OMA is best positioned for work on application-layer, bearer- agnostic standards –Expertise from both 3GPP and 3GPP2 can foster solutions that work well and interoperate across all access networks (GSM/UMTS, CDMA2000) –Significant presence from the IT community allows OMA service enablers to bridge the gap between the wired and wireless domains Having OMA as the “one-stop shop” for application-layer standards can yield many benefits –Avoids duplication of effort across 3GPP and 3GPP2 – companies need only send delegates to one organization –Single set of standards helps to maximize the number of subscribers that can communicate with each other, regardless of their access network

OMA-TP R01 4 Collaboration Challenges (1/2) Insufficient OMA participation by CDMA2000 companies –OMA is a very large organization (numerous working groups, sub- working groups, BoFs, interim meetings, conference calls, …) –In some meetings and calls, there is little or no CDMA2000 representation –CDMA2000 operators should work toward ensuring that their service requirements are reflected in OMA service enabler development –CDMA2000 companies need to actively participate and contribute their expertise to make sure that OMA enablers work well in CDMA2000 networks

OMA-TP R01 5 Collaboration Challenges (2/2) OMA Openness Policy hinders the exchange of information with 3GPP and 3GPP2 –Some 3GPP2 participants are not members of OMA, yet must rely on OMA enablers if tight collaboration between 3GPP2 and OMA is pursued –Current lack of complete openness in OMA makes document exchange and normative spec references difficult –OMA’s openness policy should align with policies that have been used successfully for many years by 3GPP and 3GPP2 Need to make sure that application enabler standards and IOP testing are done in OMA or bodies that have representation from both 3GPP and 3GPP2 –Examples: OMA enabler certification, OMA DRM compliance/robustness verification, IMTC for streaming –Avoid wholesale adoption of specifications from microfora without modification as OMA standards

OMA-TP R01 6 Recommended Working Procedures Transfer of existing work (e.g. MMS) should be studied on a case-by-case basis –Determine time frame, division of responsibility for maintaining specifications, etc. –Access-specific parts (e.g. MMS codecs) stay with the PPs –Access-independent parts (e.g. MMS protocols) move to OMA For new work, the working procedures suggested in “Actions following the OMA-3GPP Workshop” (OMA-TP R02) should be considered –OMA, 3GPP and 3GPP2 Requirements groups should regularly exchange their work programs, work items, requirements documents, etc. –Goal is to identify dependencies and avoid overlapping work

OMA-TP R01 7 Conclusions (1/2) OMA’s success can benefit the entire wireless industry Requires effective collaboration with both 3GPP and 3GPP2 Recommended Actions for OMA: Continue equitable treatment of 3GPP and 3GPP2 (liaisons sent to both, documents shared with both, requirements input from both, etc.) Work toward greater openness to facilitate collaboration with the PPs

OMA-TP R01 8 Conclusions (2/2) Recommended Actions for 3GPP2: 3GPP2 member companies need to be more active in OMA – under-representation of 3GPP2 risks OMA service enablers that –Fail to accommodate the unique features of CDMA2000 networks –Do not reflect the needs of CDMA2000 operators 3GPP2 should continue to work toward greater cooperation with OMA for application-layer specification work –Establish 3GPP2 formal procedures for coordination between OMA and affected 3GPP2 working groups (e.g. TSG-S for requirements) –Allow requirements developed in 3GPP2 to be brought into OMA (as 3GPP currently does in many areas)