1. Submission Title: Validation and Verification Task Force Proposal
May 2014
Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Submission Title: Validation and Verification Task Force Proposal
Date Submitted: May 2014
Source:
Frederik Beer, Joerg Robert, Friedrich-Alexander University (FAU) / Fraunhofer IIS, Am Wolfsmantel 33, Erlangen, Germany
Abstract: Suggestion for Validation and Verification Task Force
Purpose: Providing direction towards a ULP PHY standard
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
Frederik Beer, Joerg Robert

2. Frederik Beer, Joerg Robert May, 2014
Proposal for “Validation and Verification Task Force” for IEEE q
Frederik Beer, Joerg Robert
May, 2014
Frederik Beer, Joerg Robert

3. May 2014
Outline:
Motivation
Proposal for Validation and Verification Task Force
Next Steps
Frederik Beer, Jörg Robert

4. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
May 2014
Motivation:
The proposed IEEE q amendment offers a wide range of new modulation and encoding algorithms on the transmitter side
Even careful drafting of the amendment cannot completely eliminate potential bugs or unclear wording
Undiscovered bugs in the specification may hinder the successful and rapid commercial adoption of the IEEE q amendment
Frederik Beer, Jörg Robert
<author>, <company>

5. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
May 2014
Proposal:
Implement a voluntary task force within (or outside) IEEE q that verifies and validates the proposed amendment
Each participating company is supposed to generate its own reference streams at specific test points and compare them to the reference streams of other companies at the same reference points
Verification, whether different companies have the very same understanding of the amendment
Validation, whether the amendment has bugs
No disclosure of reception algorithms, as comparison takes place on the transmit signals
Well-proven approach, which has been already used in other standardization bodies
Frederik Beer, Jörg Robert
<author>, <company>

6. Transmitter System Block Diagram with Test Points:
May 2014
Transmitter System Block Diagram with Test Points:
Block diagram with positions of the individual test points. Accordingly test points would be defined for TOOK PHY 2 1a 1 3a 3 4 5 1
Test Point
Frederik Beer, Jörg Robert

7. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
May 2014
Example:
The stream at “test point 1” is pre-defined
The companies take their chains to simulate the streams at the other reference points for previously agreed parameter configurations
The participating companies upload their generated streams for the following reference points onto a server
A mismatch between the streams of different companies indicates a potentially unclear section or bug in the amendment
Companies A,B and C have identical streams. The stream of company D shows a mismatch.
Frederik Beer, Jörg Robert
<author>, <company>

8. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
May 2014
Required Next Steps:
General agreement on voluntary task force
FAU would volunteer to organize the task force
Identification of a list of useful parameter configurations and test points
Definition of the file exchange format
Setup of file server with automatic comparison
Again FAU volunteers
Start of comparison process
Frederik Beer, Jörg Robert
<author>, <company>

9. May 2014
Conclusion:
Undiscovered bugs or unclear wording may hinder the commercially successful adoption of the new amendment
FAU proposes a voluntary task force for the validation and the verification of the IEEE q amendment
Such validation and verification process is already well- proven in other standardization bodies
The group has to agree whether it likes to contribute to this activities
Frederik Beer, Jörg Robert