doc.: IEEE Submission September 2008 A. Batra, S. Hosur, TI; O. Omeni, ToumazSlide 1 NOTE: Update all red fields replacing with your information; they are required. This is a manual update in appropriate fields. All Blue fields are informational and are to be deleted. Black stays. After updating delete this box/paragraph. Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Need for a comparison criteria document] Date Submitted: [ 09 September, 2008] Source: [Anuj Batra, Srinath Hosur and Okundu Omeni] Company [Texas Instruments and Toumaz] Address [12500 TI Blvd, Dallas, TX 75243] Voice:[ ], FAX: [ ], Re: [If this is a proposed revision, cite the original document.] [If this is a response to a Call for Contributions, cite the name and date of the Call for Contributions to which this document responds, as well as the relevant item number in the Call for Contributions.] [Note: Contributions that are not responsive to this section of the template, and contributions which do not address the topic under which they are submitted, may be refused or consigned to the General Contributions area.] Abstract:[This document describes the need for a selection criteria document.] Purpose:[For information.] Notice:This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release:The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P

doc.: IEEE Submission September 2008 A. Batra, S. Hosur, TI; O. Omeni, ToumazSlide 2 Need for a Comparison Criteria Document

doc.: IEEE Submission September 2008 A. Batra, S. Hosur, TI; O. Omeni, ToumazSlide 3 Dilemma Once the proposals are presented, how do we compare them? We need a common and objective framework to compare the various proposals In other task groups, a comparison criteria document is created to define simulations, tests, measurements and other comparison criteria These results are used to qualitatively compare various aspects of the proposals We need a similar document for TG6

doc.: IEEE Submission September 2008 A. Batra, S. Hosur, TI; O. Omeni, ToumazSlide 4 An Incomplete List of Metrics Complexity (gate count, die size estimates) at a specified technology node Bill-of-material (BOM) – includes list of needed external components Estimate of power consumption – active Tx, active Rx, idle mode and sleep mode PHY data rates and throughput at MAC-SAP 90% outage range versus packet error rate (PER) Link budget, including receiver sensitivity Frequency band, channelization and Tx spectral mask Performance in interference environments with realistic interferers, impact on throughput, range and separation distance (between desired device and interfering device) Regulatory impact Scalability

doc.: IEEE Submission September 2008 A. Batra, S. Hosur, TI; O. Omeni, ToumazSlide 5 Conclusion We need a fair and objective way to compare the proposals A comparison criteria document is also useful to the proponents as it defines what simulations they need to run and what information they need to provide as part of their proposal A comparison criteria document is a win-win for the group