1. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
13 January 2001
Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Submission Title: [TG3-Coding-criteria]
Date Submitted: [11 January 2001]
Source: [James P. K. Gilb] Company [Mobilian]
Address [11031 Via Frontera, Suite C, San Diego, CA 92127]
Voice:[ ], FAX: [ ],
Re: []
Abstract: [The criteria for evaluating PHY coding methods for the P draft standard.]
Purpose: [Describe the evaluation criteria for the voting members.]
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
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
<author>, <company>

2. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
13 January 2001
Background
The candidate draft standard was approved in November with the coding method for the higher order modulations (16-QAM, 32-QAM and 64-QAM) left undefined
Four coding schemes were part of the proposals in Tampa, two have dropped (Rios, Dabak).
TG3 will vote to select one of two methods in Monterey
The methods will be evaluated against the relevant criteria from P /110r14
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
<author>, <company>

3. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
13 January 2001
Criteria Outline
Unit Manufacturing Cost
Delay Spread Resistance
Delivered Data Throughput
Range
Power Consumption
Latency
IP issues
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
<author>, <company>

4. Unit Manufacturing Cost
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
13 January 2001
Unit Manufacturing Cost
UMC (section 2.1) addresses the PAR's requirement for a low cost system.
Enabling lower cost implementations will increase the usefulness of the standard.
All-digital implementations are on the favorable cost-curve of Moore's law.
What is relatively expensive in bits now will be much cheaper in 4 years.
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
<author>, <company>

5. Unit Manufacturing Cost Criteria
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
13 January 2001
Unit Manufacturing Cost Criteria
Definition:
The incremental cost of all parts required to implement a complete TX/RX coding solution including all logic and memory.
Values:
The incremental cost in US $ of implementing the proposed coding scheme calculated assuming $0.20 USD/100 kgates
Success Criteria:
Additional cost is less than ???
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
<author>, <company>

6. Delay Spread Resistance
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
13 January 2001
Delay Spread Resistance
The wireless environment is hostile to high-speed and wide-band signals.
The short-range, home environment, however, is more benign than office, factory or vehicular environments.
Some coding schemes may improve delay spread resistance, others may not and rely instead on an equalizer.
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
<author>, <company>

7. Delay Spread Resistance Criteria
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
13 January 2001
Delay Spread Resistance Criteria
Definition:
The delay spread tolerance is the value of T_RMS for which a maximum FER of 1% is met for 95% of the channels generated using the channel model defined in The power level at the transmitter is set 14 dB above the level required for a 1% FER in an AWGN channel. At least 1000 channels should be generated. Note that the channel model in will generate channels with fading parameters, so at the receiver the signal level will vary from one channel realization to the next channel realization.
Values:
The value of T_RMS in ns
Success Criteria:
The value of T_RMS is greater than 25 ns
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
<author>, <company>

8. Delivered Data Throughput
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
13 January 2001
Delivered Data Throughput
The requirement for the standard is a system which can deliver 20 Mb/s.
There is also a desire to have an enhanced mode with greater than 40 Mb/s.
The coding methods will decrease the delivered data throughput while hopefully decreasing the PER.
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
<author>, <company>

9. Delivered Data Throughput Criteria
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
13 January 2001
Delivered Data Throughput Criteria
Definition:
Delivered data throughput is the rate at which the user’s data is passed through the system. The values presented here assume that a microwave oven or other channel impairment will not be in operation at the same time as the desired signals are transmitted. If there is an operating microwave oven in the Personal Operating Space (POS) of this device, it is assumed that the user has enough control of the POS environment to turn it off when desiring to transmit.
Values:
Throughput in Mb/s and % overhead for each of the higher order modulations calculated using P /354r2
Success Criteria:
None defined, more is better
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
<author>, <company>

10. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
13 January 2001
Range
The PAR requires a system that has a 10 m range in an environment where the user has control of potential interferers.
The range depends on the actual fading, both flat and frequency-selective, the TX power, the RX sensitivity and the presence of other interfering devices.
The actual range will be different at every location will change over time.
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
<author>, <company>

11. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
13 January 2001
Range Criteria
Definition:
Based on the PAR, the proposed system shall be able to initiate a WPAN connection within a 10 meter radius 99.9% of the time.
Values:
For each of the higher-order modulations, report the receiver sensitivity assuming a receiver noise figure of 12 dB and ideal isotropic antenna (i.e. 0 dBi gain).
Success Criteria:
Undefined, lower sensitivity is better
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
<author>, <company>

12. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
13 January 2001
Power Consumption
Wireless PAN connectivity implies small, mobile devices.
Battery life will be an important aspect to the consumer
Actual battery life will depend on the use model, which has not been defined by TG3.
The goal is for the coding to have a minimal impact on the peak DC power consumption.
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
<author>, <company>

13. Power Consumption Criteria
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
13 January 2001
Power Consumption Criteria
Definition:
The total amount of DC power required by the proposed system to operate the encoder or decoder for each of the higher order modulation schemes.
Values:
The DC power requirement for the encoder/decoder circuitry each of the higher-order modulations assuming mW/(MHz*kgate)
Success Criteria:
Undefined, lower is better. Total peak power for complete radio must be less than 0.5 W
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
<author>, <company>

14. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
13 January 2001
Latency
Latency was not specifically called out in the criteria document, but it was implied in the throughput requirement.
A long latency in decoding or encoding a packet will affect the TX/RX turnaround time and hence degrade the efficiency of the system.
A 10 ms TX/RX turnaround time has been proposed.
Fast decisions need to be done in hardware since software relies on interrupts which are relatively slow.
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
<author>, <company>

15. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
13 January 2001
Latency Criteria
Definition:
TX or encoding latency is the time from when the first bit to be encoded is presented to the encoder until the its representation is available at the output of the encoder.
RX or decoding latency is the time from when the first demodulated symbol is present at the decoder until the first valid decoded bit is available at the output of the decoder.
Values:
TX and RX latency times in ms
Success Criteria:
Undetermined, less is better
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
<author>, <company>

16. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
13 January 2001
IP Issues
IP issues are not explicitly called out in the criteria document, but the IEEE has a very specific policy on it for standards
The preference for a standard is for it to be unencumbered by essential IP claims
Patented technology is allowed if it:
provides an important technical benefit
Is available in a non-discriminatory license for fair and reasonable terms.
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
<author>, <company>

17. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
13 January 2001
IP Issues Criteria
Definition:
What known or potential IP claims are there for the proposed coding method.
Values:
A description of any potential IP or listing of the dates of published references to the method.
Success Criteria:
Bad: IP not available for fair and reasonable terms
Better: IP owner has agrees to IEEE “fair and reasonable”
Best: Method described in the open literature > 20 years ago
or agrees to not enforce it’s IP.
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
<author>, <company>

18. Code Selection Process
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
13 January 2001
Code Selection Process
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
<author>, <company>

19. Coding Proposal Presentations
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
13 January 2001
Coding Proposal Presentations
Monday – 3:51 PM – Karaoguz Doc. #
Tuesday – 8:02 AM – O’Farrell Doc. #
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
<author>, <company>

20. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
13 January 2001
Coding Voting Times
Wednesday – 9:00
Panel Discussion on Remaining 2 Methods
9:10 Each proposer has 2 minutes for position statement with 13 minute Q/A
Wednesday – 9:30
Voting (2 to 1)
Coding Confirmation Vote - 9:40
Wednesday 9:50 Confirmation Role Call Vote
10:31 Resolution of No Votes (if necessary for 75%)
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
<author>, <company>

21. IEEE 802.15.3 Voting Process (pg.1 of 2)
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
13 January 2001
IEEE Voting Process (pg.1 of 2)
a) for the voters, by ballot vote, to vote for one proposal or none of the above. (Voting record will be posted following the vote.)
b) the proposal (or proposals in case of a "tie") receiving the least votes is eliminated
c) the process continues with a vote as in "a" and "b" eliminating proposals one by one
each time the number of proposals in the eliminating process has been reduced to four and two a panel discussion shall be held with the remaining proposers as panel members. The length of discussion shall be limited to 15 minutes times the number of remaining proposals. Discussion shall be limited to voting members and the presenters (or their designate).
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
<author>, <company>

22. IEEE 802.15.3 Voting Process (pg. 2 of 2)
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
13 January 2001
IEEE Voting Process (pg. 2 of 2)
d) when one proposal is left the voters shall vote (roll call) for the proposal or none of the above and the proposal shall be required to achieve a 75% majority in order to be submitted to the working group as a recommendation. If the remaining proposal fails to achieve a 75% majority, the members who voted "no" shall be requested to state why they voted no and what would be required to change their vote to an affirmative vote. The proposer shall have an opportunity to respond to the concerns of the no voters. After which a roll call vote will be taken to approve the proposal.
e) if the last remaining proposal fails to receive 75% majority, the process shall begin again with the proposals remaining after 50% were eliminated.
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
<author>, <company>

23. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
13 January 2001
Panel Process
Total time for panel is 15 minutes * number of remaining proposals
Two minute position statement from each member of the panel (optional)
Q&A – Questions may only be asked by voting members.
FIFO queue of questions will be kept by Chair.
Only one question per position in the queue.
Questions must be stated in no more than one minute
Answers must be stated in no more than two minutes
No motions will be considered during the panel.
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
<author>, <company>