TSG-S OMA (Open Mobile Alliance) Ad-Hoc Report Richard Robinson Chair - 3GPP2 TSG-S SC B_Eshwar Pittampalli’s (Lucent) comments/concerns embedded. Also please look at contribution -008D of Shenzhen SC meeting for prior report of OMA AdHoc.

Page 1 SC B Contents Background & Assignment from SC in January 2003 Communication with OMA Technical Plenary Centralized Management via PMT Measures of Success

Page 2 SC B Background and SC Assignment Ref. SC R1, Section 13.1 – It was concluded that:  3GPP2 is still lacking in information regarding the current and proposed activities of the OMA (so is OMA about 3GPP2– How is this void being filled?),  3GPP2 might wish to engage in informal discussions (What would be informal?) with OMA representatives in an effort to gain awareness (Has there been any progress during the past 6 months??).  All TSGs should feel free to communicate with the OMA regarding gathering required information (This would result in a multiple sources/letters/individuals trying to gain access to the information from 3GPP2 and vice versa )  TSG-S will serve as a focal point for gathering OMA-related information and developing 3GPP2 needs (Why TSG-S, why not TSG-X? Network expertise is in TSG- X not in TSG-S..).  All efforts aimed at developing a potential relationship (Is this formal or informal?) between 3GPP2 and the OMA are to be undertaken either by the Steering Committee or by the Organizational Partners, as appropriate. OMA Proposed Framework 3GPP2 SC OP OMA BoD Liaison Committee TSG-S PMT (??) OMA Tech. Plenary 3GPP2 Needs

Page 3 SC B Background – OMA Ad-Hoc Conclusions April meeting with all TSG representatives and May meeting: u Prefer to operate within and establish plain language, non-binding working guidelines (Is this work in progress? Should we wait till this document is finalized and agreed to by the 3GPP2 community?) –  Within the spirit of the SC assignment  Establishment of guidelines is not a decision for specific work items but the establishment of procedures only  3GPP2 will need to establish document reference procedure similar to that existing with 3GPP today (Does this include IPR and Copyright issues?) u Consensus that the formal Framework proposal from OMA is inappropriate for the current working relationship (Why is consensus not required? ) TSG-S PMT (????) OMA Tech. Plenary 3GPP2 Needs

Page 4 SC B SC Action Recommendations Based on OMA Ad-Hoc review to date, TSG-S asks the SC to direct TSG-S to develop the following (as detailed on the following slides): u Develop procedures to establish open communications between 3GPP2 and OMA (Is this informal or formal? SC should do this directly without involving TSG-S) u Develop procedures for centralized management of the process internally within 3GPP2 (SC should do this directly.) Additionally, TSG-S asks the SC for approval to implement these processes on a single item (Are these processes or guidelines going to be approved by the SC or OP?), to be selected by the TSG-S PMT, for the specific purpose of the review ing and fine tuning these processes and internal procedures and to gauge OMA response to 3GPP2 requirements (i.e., test case) (How long is this test case going to be running?).

Page 5 SC B Goal of Relationship = Open, 2-Way Communication Process (Is this going to be correspondence or physical presence communication?) Purpose/Objective (Strategy) (Is this after we go through a test case?) u Periodic exchange of information concerning workplans to obtain a better understanding of the other’s (Who?) activities u On a case-by-case basis:  Identify potential items of shared, overlapped or duplicate work ( Are we assuming that OMA is going to decide on their own without getting any feedback from 3GPP/3GPP2/IETF/..,  Identify potential level of work coordination for, and  Define conditions and procedures in a potential agreement on use of other’s work (IPR, Copyright??) u Manage coordination activities including joint meetings (OMA, 3GPP2, and sometimes 3GPP) (Are we going to be taking the responsibility for these meetings?) u Confirmation of deliverables and scope of use of other’s work (????) (Are we going to be waiting for OMA deliverable to start our work in some cases?) Levels of Communication u JEMs/Workshops meetings with applicable OMA groups as needed (Should be both ways). u TSG-S and TSG-S PMT (Why both?) have direct liaison with OMA Technical Plenary and OMA subgroups for the purpose of implementing a centralized process management function (What is this process??) on behalf of 3GPP2. (TSGs will get it directly from OMA and will adjust their respective schedules.) u All other TSGs have authorization for liaison communications with OMA groups for the purpose of resolution of technical issues in the definition, development, and confirmation phases of the shared/owned work efforts (If all TSGs start communicating with OMA, where is the need for TSG-S to centralize this activity?) u Guests and observers at the other’s meetings (???) Potential Shared, Overlapped or Duplicate Work Items u Definition of work item that 3GPP2 should do itself or that can be entrusted to OMA ( Who is going to decide what can be entrusted?) u Definition of application/service requirements (What if they don’t have definitions and requirements from their end?) u Development of application/service (same as above comment)

Page 6 SC B Centralized Management – TSG-S PMT Responsibilities: u Assessment of current work items and identification of possibility and necessity of cooperation with OMA associated with each work item (Who is going got be deciding this?). u Assessment of possibility for future use of work items already in process in OMA (same comment as above). u Definition of work projects that can be entrusted to OMA. Actual definition of scope of work must be done in conjunction with 3GPP2 technical experts. and TSGs.(delete this) u Monitor and report status of work projects done by 3GPP2 (to OMA?) and by OMA (to 3GPP2?) including identification of critical path activities (of OMA work?) and projection of schedule for final deliverables Process: u Joint meetings with 3GPP2 internal groups (Who/When/Expenses?). u Monthly status reports to all TSGs, SC Chair, and 3GPP2 Secretariat (Is this different from the Meeting Minutes of OMA?). u Direct correspondence for project alarms (direct action required, e.g., schedule slippage, requirement issues) (Are we doing OMA work in letting us know their schedule slips?).

Page 7 SC B Factors for Success Pending approval by SC/OP, S-PMT would develop the rules/guidelines (only after clarifying all the issues raised in this and other correspondences from other members of 3GPP2; SC should develop any rules/guidelines itself – not the PMT.> Relationship is based on a “plain language” working agreement (What is “plain language” agreement?), not a binding contract. Active participation of 3GPP2 membership in OMA (Is 3GPP2 going to bear expenses to send a liaison to OMA meetings?) and in 3GPP2/OMA Liaison roles is crucial. Promote 3GPP2 member activity in OMA and determining WI’s, reviewing work being done and providing inputs (3GPP2 membership is already active in OMA. What additional activity is being referred to by this?) Start slow: (Is this only a after test case???) u Pick a few work items ( single test case or multiple??) that  can be fully defined,  distinguished between 3GPP2 and OMA (What does this mean?),  Agree (What??) on case-by-case basis, ( At the TSG level – not PMT)  Monitored closely during the development effort by OMA,  fully validated after completion (How do you validate? Is there going to be determining process?), and then  considered as a working model for future work entrusted to OMA. PMT must provide formal review of status and impact of relationship to the SC: (: Such formal review should be done by each concerned TSG, not the PMT.) u After 6 months u After one (1) year.