IEEE P802.11 Wireless LANs Liaison to IEEE P802.15 Wireless PANs

1. IEEE P802.11 Wireless LANsLiaison to IEEE P802.15 Wireless PANs To: Bob Heile, Chair, IEEE P802.15 WPANs Cc: Jim Carlo, IEEE P802 SEC Chair Howard Frazier, IEEE P802, Recording Secretary SEC members From: Vic Hayes, Chair, IEEE P802.11 WLANs Date: March 7, 2000 Subject: Comments on P802.15 WPANs High Rate Study Group PAR v4 P802.11 respectfully submits the attached comments on the P802.15 High Rate Study Group PAR(V4). The motion approving the comments is also attached. David Skellern, Radiata Inc

2. Resolution of P802.11 on High Rate (802.15.3) PAR P802.11 WLAN WG adopted motion 00/61P15 (ID182) • To adopt the comments from the AdHoc group addressing the 802.15.3 PAR, and to submit the comments to 802.15 and SEC as the position of 802.11. • Moved: Bob O’Hara • Seconded: John Kowalski • Motion passed 17/4/5 The adopted comments follow: • slides 3 & 4 summarise the main points • slides 5-11 reproduce relevant PAR clauses with P802.11’s interpolated comments David Skellern, Radiata Inc

3. To have a distinct identity, a PAR must identify the distinct differences proposed from existing standards. In the opinion of 802.11, this PAR does not meet that criteria. • The PAR scope is expressed in terms of a Personal Operating Space (POS) • the POS range exceeds 10m • the range is inconsistent with short range personal area networking • the range is covered by P802.11 WLAN • The PAR purpose does not provide quantifiable measures that distinguish it from 802.11 • what market needs are quantifiably different? • what cost/complexity/power consumption/data rate tradeoff is quantifiably different? • The PAR identifies a technical requirement for scalable data rate > 20 Mbit/s • 802.11a provides scalability with mandatory data rates up to 24 Mbit/s and optional data rates up to 54 Mbit/s • The PAR identifies a technical requirement for QoS capabilities for multimedia • QoS improvements are being addressed in 802.11e David Skellern, Radiata Inc

4. The applications addressed by the standard should be considered before submitting the PAR. • Item 13a appears to allow a free reign on the applicability of the PAR • The Task Group will evaluate this proposed data rate on the basis of the Call for Applications. • It seems desirable that this take place prior to submission of the PAR so that relevance and applicability of other standards can be assessed. David Skellern, Radiata Inc

5. The scope does not distinguish the PAR from 802.11. It is inconsistent and it does not adequately address interoperability. 6. Scope of Proposed Project [This project will define the PHY and MAC specifications for high data rate (see 13a) wireless connectivity with fixed, portable and moving devices within or entering a Personal Operating Space (POS) (See 13b [13b definition of POS is unsatisfactory because it clearly encompasses distances greater than 10m and therefore is inconsistent with short range personal area networking covered by 802.15]). A goal of the WPAN-HR (High Rate) Task Group will be to achieve a level of interoperability or coexistence with other 802.15 Task Groups, or an 802.11 device (see 13c [13c seems at odds with Criteria 1a – Broad Applicability, which identifies that a ‘goal of this standard is to have a backward compatibility path to the P802.15.1 Task Group’. Is this realistic when both the PHY and MAC, as predicted in 13c, will be different. What are the real market needs? How are they quantifiably different from 802.11? What distinct user group does it serve?]). [Is interoperability or coexistence required? As written, coexistence with 802.15.1 satisfies the goal. The P802.11 WG finds this unsatisfactory. The goal needs either clarification or deletion.] It is also the intent of this project to work toward a level of coexistence with other wireless devices in conjunction with Coexistence Task Groups such as 802.15.2. David Skellern, Radiata Inc

6. The purpose does not distinguish the PAR from 802.11 7. Purpose of Proposed Project: [To provide a standard for low complexity, low cost, low power consumption, high data rate wireless connectivity among devices within or entering the Personal Operating Space (POS) [What is the quantifiable differentiation in the complexity/cost/power consumption/data rate tradeoff that distinguishes this from 802.11? Item 9 anticipates consideration of HiperLAN/2, which has a PHY close to 802.11a]The data rate will be high enough, 20 Mbps or more (see 13a [13a appears to say that the only technical requirement is scalable data rate greater than 20 Mbit/s]), to satisfy a set of multimedia industry needs for WPAN communications[This data rate is lower than the scalable data rates already supported in 802.11a.] The project will also address the Quality of Service capabilities required to support multimedia data types. [QoS improvements are being addressed in 802.11e]] David Skellern, Radiata Inc

7. 802.11 has similar scope and should be listed in Item 9 9. Are you aware of other standards or projects with a similar scope? [Yes] {Yes, with explanation below/ No} [Infrared Data Association (IrDA), Home Radio Frequency Working Group, Bluetooth Special Interest Group, Wireless Application Protocol Forum, HIPERLAN/2 Global Forum. [802.11 also has a similar scope, as outlined in comments in Items 6 & 7]] Except for ETSI’s HYPERLANstandards, these groups are not standards organizations but are Industry consortia that have similar charters. The Working Group intends to establish liaisons with these groups with respect to technical, marketing, and coexistence aspects, as appropriate. As Industry Consortia, formal coordination in Item 12 may be inappropriate. The WAP coordination will be monitored in conjunction with the desires of the Working Group, for appropriateness, as this industry forum may not be developing specifications in this area. HIPERLAN/2 will be considered in the Task Group evaluations as appropriate. [Surely if HiperLAN/2 is to be considered, then so should 802.11. HiperLAN/2 has a PHY which is almost identical to 802.11a.]] David Skellern, Radiata Inc

8. 802.11 requests coordination at least 12c. Coordination Requested by Others: [ !! How about 802.11 ??] {added by staff} David Skellern, Radiata Inc

9. 802.11a provides scalable data rate up to 54 Mbit/s 13a] High data rates are required for time dependant and large file transfer applications such as video or digital still imaging. Twenty Mbps is proposed to be the lowest rate for these types of data. The Task Group will evaluate this proposed data rate on the basis of the Call for Applications.[Shouldn’t the applications be considered before preparing the PAR] It is possible, for example, that several data rates could be supported for different consumer applications. Consequently the notions of cost, frequency band, performance, power and data rate scalability will be addressed. [13a appears to say that the only technical requirement is data rate greater than 20 Mbit/s. 802.11a already supports scalability with mandatory data rates up to 24 Mbit/s and optional data rates up to 54 Mbit/s.] David Skellern, Radiata Inc

10. The POS is covered by 802.11 13b] A Personal Operating Space (POS) is a space about a person or object that typically extends up to 10 meters in all directions and envelops the person whether stationary or in motion. It may also include the space a person regularly controls as their own, regardless of their personal presence, such as a house. [Household coverage clearly can exceed 10m. The definition of POS is inconsistent with short range personal area networking as defined in this PAR.] The notion includes personal control over devices and RF noise sources within this space, as well as the need for privacy. [How is an RF noise source defined? How is it controlled?] POS use models permit more freedom over the design of the radio than in Medical or Enterprise LAN applications where the primary goal is link robustness at long range. [What is the POS usage model? It is difficult to understand from this PAR how the model cannot be met by 802.11. Will the work under this PAR ignore robustness? How can QoS measures be met if robustness is not a priority?] Consequently, WPAN standards are able to focus on other priorities, such as cost, size, power consumption and data rate. [Again, as asked in Item 7, what is the measure that is required to be met] David Skellern, Radiata Inc

11. How are the market needs quantifiably different from 802.11? 13c] It is not the intent of this TG to be an extension of 802.15.1, because the MAC needs are predicted to be different. [This seems at odds with Criteria 1a – Broad Applicability, which identifies that a ‘goal of this standard is to have a backward compatibility path to the P802.15.1 Task Group’. What are the real market needs? How are they quantifiably different from 802.11? What distinct user groups does it serve?] It is, however, in the best interest of Users and the industry to strive for compatibility, or at least coexistence with other wireless systems, especially those in similar market spaces such as BlueToothtm . Compatibility and coexistence criteria will be included in the proposal evaluations. David Skellern, Radiata Inc