TG4a-Selection-Criteria-doc-status-Portland

1. Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [TG4a-Selection-Criteria-doc-status-Portland ] Date Submitted: [13 July 2004] Source: [Philippe Rouzet, TG4a Technical Editor], Company [STMicroelectronics] Address: [STMicroelectronics, 39 Chemin du Champ des Filles 1228 Geneve Plan-les-Ouates, Switzerland] Voice: [ +41 22 929 58 66], FAX: [+41 22 929 29 70], E-Mail:[philippe.rouzet@stm.com] Re: [IEEE P802.15.SG4a CFA] Abstract: [TG4a is in the process of drafting the Selection Criteria Document for the requirements to be used in the selection process for a PHY Draft Standard for P802.15.4a and has nearly completed the Technical Requirement Doc] Purpose: [Status of the current Selection Criteria Draft (July 2004 –Portland IEEE session) and plan for the next steps] Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P802.15. 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 P802.15.

2. TG4a PORTLANDSelection Criteria Doc (SCD) Status • available on the reflector (draft form) • SCD rev 4 (of TG4a) :15-04-0232-04-004a-tg4a-alt-phy-selection-criteria.doc

3. TG4a PORTLANDSelection criteria doc (SCD) 1/5 • First session dealing with SCD started March 17th. • 8 conf.calls so far +Anaheim and Portland meeting See exchanges through the reflector and conf. calls or meeting minutes • The group agreed to start using the structure of 15.3a SCD (03031r9P802-15_TG3a-PHY-Selection-Criteria.doc) • Note: in the next slides ref. to the SCD doc. are as follow : [5.6.2]

4. TG4a PORTLAND Selection criteria doc 2/5 Status • Draft agreed up to [5.1.2] inclusive • 2 minor additions or modifications to be discussed : • [3.5.2] ranging • [3.2.2.2] interference model

5. TG4a PORTLAND Selection criteria doc 3/5 Actions • One more item proposed: aggregated throughput • Definition • Figures • Q. to answer: Impact on the modeling (e.g. SOP) see [5.3] ?

6. TG4a PORTLAND Selection criteria doc 4/5 Sections to complete now: • [5.2] PHY-SAP payload bit rate and Data throughput (S) (editor comment: mainly references to 802.15.4 MAC structure) [5.3]Simultaneously operating piconets (C) (editor comments: this section is critical in that sense that it has a major impact : • On the performance results as expressed in the proposals • On the amount of simulations proposers will have to perform also see annex to this doc) • [5.4] Signal Acquisition (S) (editor comment: please express view on the target acquisition time) • [5.5] System Performance (S) Note: (S) : mainly editing work (C) more complex : discussion must be conducted on principles and methods

7. TG4a PORTLAND Selection criteria doc 5/5 Sections to complete now: • [5.7] Link Budget (S) (editor comment: please check the table structure and equations definition) • [5.8]Power management modes (S) (editor comments: please check the consistency with 802.15.4 ) • [5.9] Power Consumption (S) (editor comment: please express view on the target acquisition time) • [5.5] Antenna Practibility (S) (editor comment: please provide appropriate information on the form factor)

8. TG4a PORTLAND Selection criteria doc Annex: simulations for range estimation and S.O.P. performance (excerpt from a mail sent to 15.4a group on 9 July 2004 in preparation of this session) * The first discussion is about the rationales. Do we need this section? […general opinion is that] we need to compare proposals on this criteria since a number of applications suggest that many uncoordinated 15.4a piconets will coexist in relatively small areas. * The second point (if yes for the first one)is how to assess. - we need to unambiguousy provide a method, - 15.3a describes one possible method (see note 1)in section 5.3), […], - we need to take care of minimizing the simulation time - 15.4a could provide some specificities (larger range, moving nodes, ...)

9. TG4a PORTLAND Selection criteria doc Annex: simulations for range estimation and S.O.P. performance Summary of the method (simplified, other interpretations exist) 2 stages: * Stage1 : for a couple (TX, RX), without interferer Determine the max. distance dref function of given PER (8%)and given packet length. For each CM (CM1, CM3, CM4), 100 channel drawings are provided (fixed for all proposers), CM1 to CM100 Proposers simulate TX (e.g 200 random packets per CMi --> average d(CMi)). Then the 10 worst results are eliminated and the next worst is selected, giving the max distance. (we have, after sorting: CMs1 to CMs10 eliminated , CMs11 --> dref, CMs12 to CMs100 It's an iterative process: When you reach 8% PER you are done (if not iterate your simulation) (Note […]introduce a shadowing effect and [see] how it affects the channels drawings and the simulation results)

10. TG4a PORTLAND Selection criteria doc Annex: simulations for range estimation and S.O.P. performance * stage 2 : with one interferer [then same method for 2 and 3 interferers] First add 6dBs of received energy to the receiver (renormalize) (which is: new dref =dref* 0.707) Second select a subset of the channels for the ref. link (TX, RX) and another (no autocorrelation) for the interference link (Txinterf, RX) […] : CMs11 to CMs15 for (TX,RX), CMs16 to CMs20 for (Txinterf, RX) And perform the same kind of operations to determine min distance dinterf. where you still get 8% (in fact it's dint/dref ratio). [in] chapter 5.3.2 […] many variations were asked (Cmi versus CMj,several interferers, different bit rates, as many different modulations types as defined in the proposals). Also some side effects : e.g. Code rate affects the length of the frame (in-air).