Re: [6gip] 6G in 3GPP?

["Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo)" <[e-mail]>]

Alex,

If there is no 6G architecture from 3GPP how can you work on protocols to facilitate the 6G architecture? 
It seems to me that there is now ground for such work. At least there should be a use case that goes beyond 5G.

Best regards
Hannu
-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:45 AM
To: Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 6G in 3GPP?

Le 13/01/2021 à 16:57, Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo) a écrit :
> Hello
> 
> Neither I know any, nor my colleagues any 3GPP documents about 6G.
> 
> 3GPP is currently at mid-way with 5G. There will still be a number of 
> releases left for 5G  to come. In fact, I assume that now when 5G is 
> pushing towards new verticals (mIoT, industry, vehicular, etc.) there 
> will be new requirements for protocol work needed for 5G. For example, 
> consider the discussion about multi-path support for QUIC in QUIC wg. 
> Similar requests are likely to come.

Hannu,

I do not disagree.

I think indeed 3GPP still works a lot on 5G.  I think it is good they do it.  I think 3GPP might not need an email list at IETF to design use-cases for 5G and 5G+ of 3GPP.

That is a personal oppinion and represents just one person.

> Therefore, I am on the opinion that 6G work, even 6G related protocol 
> research work in the IRTF, should wait for use cases (and radio 
> extensions) that 5G is not able to respond.

I dont think so.

I think 5G work at 3GPP is great.

Would your suggestion be that 6gip email list should wait for 3GPP to work on 6G?

There might be a problem with names, but I doubt 3GPP has a trademaark on an acronym such as "6G".  "5G" itself was in years 1980 representing the 5th Generation of Computers.  People also use routinely the term "5G" to stand for 5 Gigahertz instead of the 5th Generation of telecom.

Alex

> 
> 
> Best regards Hannu
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Alexandre Petrescu 
> <[e-mail]> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021
> 10:40 AM To: Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo) 
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] Subject: Re: 6G in 
> 3GPP?
> 
> Me too I would like to ask I would like whether someone knows of a 
> document on the 3gpp.org site that has the term '6G' in it?
> 
> Le 12/01/2021 à 17:55, Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo) a écrit :
>> Hello Alexandre
>> 
>> In your slides you claim the 6G is discussed in Rel 17. Can you tell 
>> in which document or WG?
>> 
>> I am involved quite a bit in 3GPP as well as in 6G research and I am 
>> not aware of any of such discussion.
>> 
>> Without a reference I must consider that statement be misinformation.
>> 
>> Best regards
>> 
>> Hannu
> 
> Thanks for having gone through the slides; the slides tried to 
> summarize the discussions on the email list at that time.
> 
> It might be that a potential reationship between 3GPP and 6G to be a 
> stretch.
> 
> I might bear responsibility of having misread the emails, or read them 
> too quickly, when drawing a conclusion that 3GPP might work on 6G, and 
> writing that down.  Sorry for misunderstanding.
> 
> We had some mention on this list of an NGMN alliance (Next Generation 
> Mobile Networks) which initiated a task force on 6G; elsewhere, NGMN 
> is ack'ed as a contributor to 3GPP by a wikipedia article.  That might 
> make it that 3GPP might have some work on 6G.
> 
> It might be that some discussions between usual contributors to 3GPP 
> might have mentioned 6G even though there might be no document on 
> 3gpp.org that reads '6G'.  For my part, I do not know what document is 
> Rel 17 more precisely, but I suspect I could find Rel 17 on 3gpp.org.
> 
> It might be that other industry alliances (e.g. 5GAA) could be 
> outright opposed to work on things deemed "6G".  It might be that such 
> opposition is supported by other funding bodies.  I do not know why 
> the opposition, but that is the way it is.
> 
> If, for some reason, 3GPP considers the talk of 6G to be too early, 
> and why not potentially disruptive to the ongoing work of 5G, then 
> that is a 3GPP problem to solve.  That would not be the only problem 
> they should address.  I suspect a ling standing problem is even the 
> name "3G" in a 3GPP working on something else than 3G (e.g. 3GPP 
> working on 4G or 5G).
> 
> I want to tell also that there might be other problems of 5G, on which 
> 3GPP works, and which deserve attention.
> 
> Such problems could be solved by working on something new, like 6G.
> 
> It is a speculation from my part.
> 
> I would like to ask others whether someone knows of a document on the 
> 3gpp.org site that has the term '6G' in it?
> 
> Alex
>