90 likes | 104 Views
Launch a discussion on scope considerations for NAN standards activity, aiming to stimulate discussion and guide future Study Group work.
E N D
Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [IG-NAN PAR Considerations for NAN] Date Submitted: [1/3/2020] Source: [Benjamin A. Rolfe] Company [Blind Creek Associates] Address [] Voice:[+1.408.395.7207] E-Mail: [ben@blindcreek.com] Re: [] Abstract: Launch a discussion on some considerations for determining project scope and content for the NAN standards activity. Purpose: Stimulate discussion in the Interest Group, looking ahead to Study Group work. 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. Rolfe
Some Scope Considerations A Semi-Directed Discussion IG-NAN Denver, 2008 Benjamin A. Rolfe In Collaboration with Silver Spring Networks Rolfe
Purpose and Goals • Launch some Discussion • Thinking about SG work • Get a Good Start Rolfe
Process in a Nutshell Rolfe
Range of TG Options • Amendment to 802.15.4 LR-WPAN • New PHY • MAC enhancements related to PHY • Coordination with TG4e for other MAC enhancements • New standard in 802.15 (Neighborly WPAN?) • New NBFH PHY • New MAC • New WG for NAN • Obviously new everything Rolfe
Pro/Con of Options • Amendment to 802.15.4 LR-WPAN • Most expedient (maybe) • Leverages existing 15.4 inertia and synergies (ZigBee, ISA100) • Most constrained approach • May not satisfy all the NAN requirements Rolfe
Pro/Con of Options • New standard in 802.15 • More flexible technical approach (more options) • May get technically more ideal solution • Avoids conflicts with legacy 15.4 • Avoids bloating 802.15.4 • May take longer Rolfe
Pro/Con of Options • New WG for NAN • Obviously new everything, most flexibility • Probably take much longer (but who knows?) • Up to EC to decide Rolfe