1. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0955r4 Submission August 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 1 Smart Grid Technology Summer 2010 Plans Date: 2010-August-25 Abstract: Discussion PAP#2 Report NameCompanyAddressPhoneemail Bruce KraemerMarvell5488 Marvell Lane, Santa Clara, CA, 95054 +1-321-751-3988bkraemer@marvell.com Jorjeta JetchevaItron

2. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0955r4 Submission August 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 2 Call Agenda Comments on the content of the NIST PAP#2 report, r5. R5 was posted at: http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki- sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/NIST_Priority_Actio n_Plan_2_r05.pdfhttp://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki- sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/NIST_Priority_Actio n_Plan_2_r05.pdf Other items?

3. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0955r4 Submission August 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 3 NIST Timeline Release of draft 0.6 Release of Version 1 Draft 0.5 July 28, 2010 Call for Input to Section 6 August 4, 2010 End of draft 0.5 review period September 15, 2010 December 3, 2010 November 4, 2010 SGIP face-to-face, Chicago PAP 2 meeting OpenSG meeting, Miami Tentative PAP 2 meeting SGIP face-to-face, St Louis Tentative PAP 2 meeting September 16, 2010 End of draft 0.6 review period September 30, 2010 October 29, 2010

4. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0955r4 Submission August 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 4 NIST Expectations Release 0.6 contains mature contents for all sections Minor changes are expected between release 0.6 and 1.0 to allow for NIST internal review process Technical contributions in the form comments to current draft and/or new material shall be posted on the twiki and made publicly available Technical contributions will be processed as they are received up to the end of the review period –Allow time to provide comment resolution and reach consensus prior to the close of the review period.

5. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0955r4 Submission August 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 5 Next NIST PAP 2 meetings SGIP meeting in St Louis, September 16, 2010? –Is there a need for a PAP 2 meeting? Co-located with OpenSG meeting, November 4, 2010, Miami FL. SGIP meeting, December 1-3, 2010, Chicago, IL

6. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0955r4 Submission August 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 6 Comments received during/following August 4

7. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0955r4 Submission August 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 7 Availability - 1 Hello all, I wanted to start a discussion on Link Availability (Section 4.2.1.1 on p. 23) as a continuation of our discussion on the call earlier today. Currently the text mentions that Link Availability is affected by devices being in sleep mode, or by propagation conditions and interference: Sleep mode is generally configurable and optional (can be turned off), so one technology is not going to offer less availability than another due to the presence of sleep mode capabilities because sleep mode can be configured appropriately or be turned off. Perhaps the availability of sleep mode should just be considered an energy efficiency mechanism and discussed in Section 4.2.2.3? Propagation conditions and interference affect availability of a link across all wireless technologies. What differs between different wireless technologies is how resilient they are to interference, multipath, etc., which is discussed in Section 4.2.2.1. Though these kinds of techniques can generally be employed across different technologies so it’s hard to say that they are specific to a given technology and can thus be used to compare different technologies. Are there additional dimensions to the Link Availability metric that are part of the intention behind this section but are not captured in the text? I look forward to your comments. Jorjeta

8. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0955r4 Submission August 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 8 Availability - 2 Jorjeta and all, Availability can be very focused or a rather expansive topic. I believe that sleep mode and interference are potentially problematic in mixing concepts. When designing an RF segment to be used by an application the duty cycle (sleep mode) and RF link reliability are a couple of the factors that go into the availability of the link as seen by an application. For example, if one were to PING across a link from an NMS application other factors come into play. I am hitting on some of them below. If we are speaking to the RF link alone, availability is dependent upon, but not limited to: - link budget: the received signal level above the thermal noise floor necessary to receive a signal with the appropriate margin (different margins [dB] imply a different reliability [%]). NIST has produced a robust link budget calculator (available on the web) that covers the topic in much greater detail. - SNR margin: additional margin to account for harmful interference which is dependent on the technology in use and the permissible operational rules relating to the spectrum use/users

9. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0955r4 Submission August 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 9 Availability - 3 Designed Availability: However, when describing the that the radio link is needed by the application, it implies far more than just the RF layer but also the availability of the connection (end-to-end). In many circles this is aligned more with site availability (the Uptime Institute has an excellent document covering the topic regarding Tier Classifications) and includes: - Hardware element availability (MTBF/MTTR) - System component redundancy - Distribution paths (this aligns well with the wireless topology [mesh, PTM, PTP, etc.) - Power redundancy - Fault tolerance Duty Cycle: this is relative to the percentage of time the link is designed to be available for use and tends to be dependent upon technology or operator settings (such as to conserve battery life or comply with MPE limits). In a single point of failure (no HW, backhaul, power redundancy design), one will find that ~99.5% is a designed system reliability. With redundancy in the systems (HW and/or power and/or distribution paths) 99.95 is achievable before RF availability is considered. Actual reliability will take into consideration the reliability of RF, the reliability of the system elements, the duty cycle and the operational practices of the system operator (change control, maintenance practices, etc.) Actual system reliability (as one would expect to see measured from a Network Management System report [i.e. an application]) must factor all these element in. Jake Rasweiler

10. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0955r4 Submission August 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 10 New text for August 18 Telecon New text for August 25 Telecon

11. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0955r4 Submission August 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 11 Peter Ecclesine comments – Aug 11 == Prepared definitions Definition of Packet Radio should be removed. Rate adaptation should be replaced by Link adaptation, including changing Modulation, Coding Scheme, smart antennas, hopping patterns, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_adaptationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_adaptation Link adaptation from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Link adaptation, or adaptive coding and modulation (ACM), is a term used in wireless communications to denote the matching of the modulation, coding and other signal and protocol parameters to the conditions on the (e.g. the pathloss, the interference due to signals coming from other transmitters, the sensitivity of the receiver, the available transmitter power margin, etc.). For example, EDGE uses a rate adaptation algorithm that adapts the modulation and coding scheme (MCS) according to the quality of the radio channel, and thus the bit rate and robustness of data transmission. The process of link adaptation is a dynamic one and the signal and protocol parameters change as the radio link conditions change -- for example in HSDPA in UMTS this can take place every 2 ms.modulationcodingsignal protocolpathlossinterferenceEDGEHSDPAUMTS Adaptive modulation systems invariably require some channel state information at the transmitter. This could be acquired in time division duplex systems by assuming the channel from the transmitter to the receiver is approximately the same as the channel from the receiver to the transmitter. Alternatively, the channel knowledge can also be directly measured at the receiver, and fed back to the transmitter. Adaptive modulation systems improve rate of transmission, and/or bit error rates, by exploiting the channel state information that is present at the transmitter. Especially over fading channels which model wireless propagation environments, adaptive modulation systems exhibit great performance enhancements compared to systems that do not exploit channel knowledge at the transmitter.channel state informationtime division duplexreceiverrate of transmissionbit error rateschannel state informationfading channels wireless

12. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0955r4 Submission August 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 12 Link adaptation - Continued from Wikipedia An Example of Link Adaptation In HSDPA link adaptation is performed by: choice of modulation type -- the link can employ QPSK for noisy channels and 16QAM for clearer channels. The former is more robust and can tolerate higher levels of interference but has lower transmission bit rate. The latter has twice higher bit rate but is more prone to errors due to interference and noise hence it requires stronger FEC (forward error correction) coding which in turn means more redundant bits and lower information bit rate;QPSK16QAMbit rateforward error correction choice of FEC -- the FEC code used has a rate of 1/3, but it can be varied effectively by bit puncturing and HARQ with incremental redundancy. When the radio link conditions are good more bits are punctured and the information bit rate is increased. In poor link conditions all redundant bits are transmitted and the information bit rate drops. In very bad link conditions retransmissions occur due to HARQ which ensure correct reception of the sent information but further slow down the bit rate. puncturingHARQretransmissions Thus HSDPA adapts to achieve very high bit rates, of the order of 14 megabit/s, on clear channels using 16-QAM and close to 1/1 coding rate. On noisy channels HSDPA adapts to provide reliable communications using QPSK and 1/3 coding rate but the information bit rate drops to about 2.4 megabit/s. This adaptation is performed up to 500 times per second.

13. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0955r4 Submission August 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 13 Peter Ecclesine comments – Aug 11 == Prepared definitions == Definitions to refine or remove: (unused) Generally Accepted Privacy Principles – include Web accessed groups like Truste and Better Business Bureau. (look at AT&T and Verizon Privacy Web pages) http://www22.verizon.com/privacy/ http://www.att.com/gen/privacy-policy?pid=2506 How to use the references?? Web Portal

14. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0955r4 Submission August 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 14 Needs more development Section 5.1.1 Indoor-indoor radio propagation models There should be a 5.1.2 with indoor-indoor noise including basement/garage woodworking tools, sheetmetal shop, garage door opener, washer/dryer, hair-dryer, etc. Let there be man-made noise or our models work in a vacuum.

15. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0955r4 Submission August 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 15 PAP#2 _ Report_r5 –Preface Para 2 The decision to apply wireless technologies for any given set of applications is a local decision that must take into account several important elements including both technical and business considerations. Smart Grid applications requirements must be defined with enough specificity to quantitatively define communications traffic loads, levels of performance and quality of service. Applications requirements must be combined with as complete a set of management and security requirements for the life-cycle of the system. These requirements can then used to assess the suitability of various wireless technologies to meet the requirements in the particular applications environment.

16. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0955r4 Submission August 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 16 Para 2 Recommended change Reword to incorporate the idea that SG application requirements evolve over time, yielding to experience rather than remain locked in 1989 or 1999 or 2009 economics. Smart Grid application requirements must be defined with enough specificity to quantitatively define communications traffic and levels of performance over the lifetime of the applications. Applications requirements must be combined with as complete a set of management and security requirements for the life-cycle of the equipment. The decisions to apply wireless for any given set of applications can then be based on expected performance and costs over the projected useful lifetimes of the spectrum and equipment.

17. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0955r4 Submission August 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 17 Peter Ecclesine comments – Aug 11 == Prepared definitions (Remove, unused) Last Gasp – all are proprietary, none scale Discussion: This is a term used in utilities. There is industry text on the term,e.g: http://http://ewh.ieee.org/conf/tdc/IEEE_- _Outage_Management_-_042308_FINAL.pdfhttp://http://ewh.ieee.org/conf/tdc/IEEE_- _Outage_Management_-_042308_FINAL.pdf

18. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0955r4 Submission August 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 18 Availability – Comment (Aug 18) Comment: Jorjeta Jetcheva, Itron The definition of Link Availability is vague (text on p. 22 (Section 4.2.1) and in Section 4.2.1.1 (p. 23)) and does not provide sufficient information to enable us to compare different wireless technologies. We want to know if the link is going to be available when we want to use it. This ultimately translates to the following question: if a wireless device wants to transmit a packet, how long does it need to wait before it can transmit the packet? The answer to that question ranges from “immediately” to “indefinitely” (e.g., if there is an (permanent) obstacle between the two devices that prevents communication). Some factors that affect how long a device has to wait before a link is available for it to use are technology independent (e.g., propagation conditions, interference), while others are technology- specific (e.g., medium access scheduling, power-save modes) and can thus be useful in comparing different wireless technologies.

19. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0955r4 Submission August 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 19 Availability - Proposed Text -1 (Aug 18) text to be added to Section 4.2.1.1: Link Availability refers to the ability of a device to use a wireless link when a packet needs to be sent on the link and can be evaluated in terms of the amount of time it takes before a packet can be transmitted on the link. Some factors that affect how long a device has to wait before a link is available for it to use are technology-independent (e.g., propagation conditions, interference) and affect all wireless devices, while others are technology-specific (e.g., medium access scheduling, power save mechanisms) and can thus be useful in comparing different wireless technologies. It is important to note that the availability of a wireless link may not be symmetric because the wireless environment at the two endpoints of the link may be different.

20. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0955r4 Submission August 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 20 Availability - Proposed Text -2 (Aug 18) Propagation conditions may change dynamically and may thus affect a link’s budget and availability unpredictably, e.g., passing trucks, construction. Similarly, interference from collocated devices (not necessarily networking devices) emitting signal on overlapping frequencies may affect the quality of a link and may make it unavailable for various periods of time. Both of these factors affect link availability across wireless technologies and can be mitigated to some extent through the use of techniques aimed at improving link quality as discussed in Section 4.2.2.1. Power save mechanisms may affect the ability of a device to receive traffic during the times it is in power save mode, however, they can typically be configured or turned off depending on the level of availability required by a specific network.

21. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0955r4 Submission August 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 21 Availability - Proposed Text -3 (Aug 18) Medium access scheduling may be deterministic (e.g., transmissions follow a schedule computed/dictated by a “coordinator” for the link, e.g., a base station), or may incorporate a non-deterministic component (e.g., random access mechanisms, including backoff when a device senses the medium to be busy), and typically depends on the number of devices trying to use a link simultaneously, and the amount and relative priority of the traffic they are transmitting, e.g., higher priority packets may get preferential access to the wireless medium causing lower priority packets to wait before they can be transmitted. (The effects of interference caused by transmissions by devices other than those trying to use the same link are taken into account in the technology-independent discussion and is not taken into account as part of the medium access delay.) Medium access delay is a technology-specific metric that can be a useful tool for comparing link availability across different wireless technologies. For example, given a number of devices trying to use a wireless link simultaneously, we can estimate the average time a device has to wait before it can access the medium by taking into account scheduling and backoff parameters used for timing packet transmission attempts.

22. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0955r4 Submission August 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 22 Next call – September 1 – 2pm EDT Review any additional submissions to Sections 1-5 Or to section 6

23. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0955r4 Submission August 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 23 Call for Contributions to Section 6 Suggested Outline Factors affecting performance, i.e. reliability, delay, throughput –Channel conditions such as distance, transmitted power, interference, propagation environment –Traffic load –Number of users Seeking volunteers?

24. doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0955r4 Submission August 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 24 Section 6 – Default Suggestions 6. Findings / Results Does wireless technology X meet SG-Network requirements –Performance Metrics –Reliability –Latency –Scalability –meets throughput needs –handles the number of devices needed –range –interference immunity –By actor to actor / Link by link which is the best to use –How does its work in urban, sub-urban, rural –How well does it propagate (e.g. walls, basements, vaults, clutter, hills) –scalability over a quantity of end points –Equipment required to operate –Include processing time between actor to actor