1. July 2004
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
Robert Poor, Ember Corporation

2. PHY Comparison Checklist
July 2004
PHY Comparison Checklist
Robert Poor ieee . org>
Robert Poor, Ember Corporation

3. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
July 2004
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.
Robert Poor, Ember Corporation
<author>, <company>

4. July 2004
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.
Robert Poor, Ember Corporation

5. On using this checklist
July 2004
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.
Robert Poor, Ember Corporation

6. Transmit Characteristics
July 2004
Transmit Characteristics
Transmit Power
Bits Per Second
Transmitted Spectrum
Robert Poor, Ember Corporation

7. Receiver Characteristics
July 2004
Receiver Characteristics
Sensitivity (10-4 BER)
BER vs. Eb/N0 [AWGN]
BER vs. Eb/N0 [in-band interferer]
P(sync) vs. Eb/N0 [probability of detecting packet start delimiter as a function of Eb/N0]
Robert Poor, Ember Corporation

8. Power Requirements Power consumption during Tx
July 2004
Power Requirements
Power consumption during Tx
Power consumption during Rx
Power consumption during sleep
Other power modes (e.g. idle, PLL running)
Startup/transition times (sleep to Rx, etc)
Robert Poor, Ember Corporation

9. Chip Cost Area of analog circuitry (mm2)
July 2004
Chip Cost
Area of analog circuitry (mm2)
Gate count of digital circuitry
Manufacturing Process (e.g. CMOS)
# of external components
Cost of external components
Robert Poor, Ember Corporation

10. External Properties What are the IP or licensing encumbrances?
July 2004
External Properties
What are the IP or licensing encumbrances?
Does the design conform to currently allocated spectrum?
What does “Diddy-wa-diddy” mean?
Other…
Robert Poor, Ember Corporation