doc.: IEEE /0389r1 Submission July 2004 Robert Poor, Ember CorporationSlide 1 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [PHY Comparison Checklist] Date Submitted: [15 July 2004] Source: [Robert Poor] Company [Ember Corporation] Address [313 Congress Street, Boston MA 02210] Voice:[ ], FAX: [ ], ieee. org] Re: [] Abstract:[This document presents a set of common criteria for comparing sub-GHz PHY designs submitted in response to the TG4b call for proposals xx-004b.] Purpose:[This document is intended to encourage discussion within the IEEE TG4b task group.] 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 /0389r1 Submission July 2004 Robert Poor, Ember CorporationSlide 2 PHY Comparison Checklist Robert Poor

doc.: IEEE /0389r1 Submission July 2004 Robert Poor, Ember CorporationSlide 3 Motivation This document presents a checklist of metrics for comparing sub-GHz PHY designs submitted in response to the TG4b Call For Proposals document This checklist is intended as a tool to aid in the comparison of various PHY proposals and to promote discussion.

doc.: IEEE /0389r1 Submission July 2004 Robert Poor, Ember CorporationSlide 4 Choice of Metrics The comparison metrics presented here are intended to be: –Relevant: appropriate to the goals of the 15.4 PAR. –Malleable: they will evolve as a result of discussion. –Non-binding: they are presented to accelerate discussion, not to guarantee design goals.

doc.: IEEE /0389r1 Submission July 2004 Robert Poor, Ember CorporationSlide 5 On using this checklist You are encouraged to characterize more than one design. For example, you might profile a baseline system alongside a lower- cost design that highlights particular strengths of your proposal. Designs should account for all components relevant to the PHY, from the antenna port to a “bit pipe” to and from the MAC. It should include frequency synthesizers, etc.

doc.: IEEE /0389r1 Submission July 2004 Robert Poor, Ember CorporationSlide 6 Transmit Characteristics Transmit Power Bits Per Second Transmitted Spectrum

doc.: IEEE /0389r1 Submission July 2004 Robert Poor, Ember CorporationSlide 7 Receiver Characteristics Sensitivity (10 -2 PER, 20 byte PSDU) at the detector PER vs. Eb/N0 [AWGN] PER vs. Eb/N0 [in-band interferer calculated according to ETSI methods] Multipath Performance

doc.: IEEE /0389r1 Submission July 2004 Robert Poor, Ember CorporationSlide 8 Power Requirements Power consumption during Tx Power consumption during Rx Other power modes (e.g. idle, PLL running)

doc.: IEEE /0389r1 Submission July 2004 Robert Poor, Ember CorporationSlide 9 Chip Cost Area of analog circuitry (mm 2 ) Gate count of digital circuitry Manufacturing Process (e.g. CMOS) # of external components Cost of external components

doc.: IEEE /0389r1 Submission July 2004 Robert Poor, Ember CorporationSlide 10 External Properties What are the IP or licensing encumbrances? Does the design conform to currently allocated spectrum? Does it support backwards compatibility? Yes. Other…