Meeting: TSGS4_135_India | Agenda Item: 9.6
[FS_3DGS_MED] pCR on editorial changes
Samsung Electronics Iberia SA
pCR
Agreement
| TDoc | S4-260089 |
| Title | [FS_3DGS_MED] pCR on editorial changes |
| Source | Samsung Electronics Iberia SA |
| Agenda item | 9.6 |
| Agenda item description | FS_3DGS_MED (Study on 3D Gaussian splats) |
| Doc type | pCR |
| For action | Agreement |
| Release | Rel-20 |
| Specification | 26.958 |
| Version | 0.1.1 |
| Related WIs | FS_3DGS_MED |
| download_url | https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/WG4_CODEC/TSGS4_135_India/Docs/S4-260089.zip |
| For | Agreement |
| Spec | 26.958 |
| Type | pCR |
| Contact | Eric Yip |
| Uploaded | 2026-02-03T15:43:27.883000 |
| Contact ID | 86783 |
| TDoc Status | agreed |
| Reservation date | 02/02/2026 10:14:16 |
| Agenda item sort order | 41 |
[Technical] The contribution provides no visibility of the actual tracked changes/CR text (attachment not included), so SA4 cannot verify the claim that the changes are “purely editorial” or ensure no normative/technical meaning is altered in TR 26.958 v0.1.1.
[Technical] Because the specific edits are missing, it is impossible to assess whether any terminology changes (e.g., “shall/should/may”, “encoder/decoder”, “bitstream/syntax”) inadvertently change requirements or assumptions in the 3DGS study conclusions.
[Technical] The pCR does not identify the impacted clauses/subclauses, figures, or tables in TR 26.958, preventing consistency checks (e.g., definitions vs. usage, abbreviations, and cross-references) across the document.
[Technical] No change log or summary of edit categories is provided (e.g., reference updates, figure renumbering, equation fixes), which makes it hard to detect high-risk “editorial” edits such as corrected formulas, parameter names, or units that can materially affect interpretation.
[Technical] The contribution does not state whether any references (external specs, codecs, file formats, rendering pipelines) are updated; reference changes can have technical impact if versions, titles, or scopes shift.
[Editorial] The “Purpose: Agreement” is not supported by a concrete list of proposed corrections; for an agreement request, the document should at least enumerate the main edits or provide a diff excerpt in the main body.
[Editorial] The document labels itself “editorial” but does not include the standard CR-style fields that help review (affected version, affected clauses, detailed change description), reducing reviewability even for purely editorial maintenance.
[Editorial] The summary is generic (“clean-up modifications to improve clarity and consistency”) and does not justify urgency or priority; a brief rationale tied to specific recurring issues (typos, inconsistent naming, broken cross-references) would be expected.
[Editorial] The contribution should explicitly confirm that no figures/tables are added/removed and no numbering changes affect cross-references; renumbering is a common source of residual inconsistencies if not carefully managed.
[Editorial] As a pCR against TR 26.958 v0.1.1, it should clarify whether the edits are intended for the next draft (v0.1.2) and whether they align with SA4 drafting rules (e.g., consistent capitalization of defined terms, abbreviation introduction on first use).