| Edition 28 | 4 October 2026 |
Two smaller CT1 studies. TR 24.861 has a concrete proposal for public warnings over satellite. TR 24.862 was only approved after operators and vendors objected that roaming steering belonged in Stage 1.
In 60 seconds
TR 24.861, “Study on Miscellaneous functions and services for 6G System” (rapporteur HyunJung Choe, LG Electronics), covers three areas:
| Work task | Status |
|---|---|
| Unified Access Control | KI#1.1 (enhancements) suspended pending normative requirements. The question is how delay-sensitive vs delay-tolerant services map to access categories |
| Public Warning System | KI#2.1: PWS in 6G with satellite access. Solution #2.1 proposed |
| Secure tunnels over non-3GPP access | Placeholder; no key issues yet |
Solution #2.1 replaces the legacy fixed-size “pages” format of the CB Data field that carries the warning text with a compact Length-Value format. Fewer octets go over satellite links with poor propagation, where every retransmission costs.
TR 24.862 (rapporteur Xiaoxue Zhao, CATT) studies PLMN and SNPN selection and steering of roaming (SoR) for 6G. It covers legacy and new requirements. Only one key issue is filled in so far: KI#3.1, on when and how a device indicates support for SoR features during initial registration.
Guy Daniels reports that Ericsson, Apple, T-Mobile US, AT&T and Vodafone objected to the network selection study on procedure. Their argument was that base requirements work belongs in Stage 1 of TSG SA
, not in CT1. The issue is steering of roaming, which decides which partner network a roaming subscriber lands on. It has commercial and regulatory consequences.
Agreed
The study was approved anchored to frozen SA1 specifications, so CT1 cannot create roaming requirements itself. None of the five objectors are among the 23 supporting members on the final study description.
CT#112 also completed CT’s 6G set at ten studies: three in CT1 (NAS, this umbrella study, network selection), three in CT3 and four in CT4.
Watch next
TS 22.270): any new 6G roaming or network selection requirements. Under the CT#112 compromise, TR 24.862’s “new requirements” key issues can only come from there.Sources
Report contents are read from FriendlySpec renders of the draft TRs. Drafts change at every meeting; nothing in a draft TR is agreed until its conclusions are. The CT#112 dispute is as reported by 6G Futures.