Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)

1. Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Evaluation of TG3a Proposals and Open Issues] Date Submitted: [Sept. 2003] Source: [Inhwan Kim] Company [Samsung] Address [416 Maetan3-Dong Paldal-Gu Suwon-Si Gyeonggi-Do, Korea 442-742] Voice[82.31.200.2510], FAX: [82.31.200.3350], E-Mail:[inhwan@samsung.com, yunsang.park@samsung.com] Source: [Carl Mansfield, Susumu Kitaguchi, Song-Lin Young] Company [Sharp Corp, Sharp Labs. of America] Address [5750 NW Pacific Rim Blvd, Camas, WA, 98607] Voice:[+1 360 834 8764], FAX: [+1 360 834 8696], E-Mail [cmansfield@sharplabs.com, kitaguchi@isl.nara.sharp.co.jp, syoung@sharplabs.com] Re: [P802.15-03/276r0] Abstract: [This document compares two Alt-PHY proposals vs. CE Requirements Criteria in doc. 03/276r0 and lists open issues common/specific to each proposal.] Purpose: [The purpose of this document is to provide to TG3a a joint contribution of Sharp and Samsung comparing the requirements of the CE industry with two TG3a proposals to aid in the selection process for candidate Alt PHY.] 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. Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]

2. Evaluation of TG3a Proposals vs. CE Requirements and Open Issues Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]

3. Maximum: CE perspective on criteria requirements (1) Source: 03276r0P802-15_TG3a-Consumer-Electronic-Requirements-for-TG3a.ppt, Slide 10 Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]

4. CE perspective on criteria requirements (2) Source: 03276r0P802-15_TG3a-Consumer-Electronic-Requirements-for-TG3a.ppt, Slide 11 Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]

5. Doc. 03/267r5 & 03/268r0 Comments from CE prospects Criteria Mode 1 Mode 2 Die size: 4.6(=2.7+1.9)mm2 (90nm), 6.8(=3+3.8) mm2 (130nm) Die size: 4.8(=2.9+1.9)mm2 (90nm), 7.0(=3.2+3.8) mm2 (130nm) • Total cost/complexity should be compared to relative scale of 802.11a/Bluetooth, 802.11b/Bluetooth for Home theater, Portable applications respectively Cost and Complexity 90nm CMOS foundries available 1H2004 Digital portion (for PHY) gate count: 295k External components: pre-selection filter, balun, crystal oscillator, voltage regulator, SRAM • Mode 2 should identify incremental cost of frequency dependent external components Microwave oven: 0.16m 802.11a & b, 802.15.3: ~0.2m Bluetooth (802.15.1) & 802.15.4: ~0.02m Modulated interferer: SIR>-9dB(-3.6 in May) Tone interferer: SIR>-7.9dB (-5.6 in May) Interference Robustness • Mode 2 performance is required Not disclosed • For 802.11a/b/g, 0.2m does not meet Portable device requirement of 1-5cm • Mode 1 200Mbps performance required • Degradation of throughput not reported, <50% required 110Mbps: Dint/Dref for CM1-CM4 given in Slide 29, up to 4 SOP. 110/200Mbps Dint/Dref for CM1-CM4 given in Slide 30, 31 respectively up to 4 SOP. Multi-Piconet Support 200Mbps: NA • Meet min. required 4 SOP, but 8 is desired Not addressed Fast Connect • New information required 110Mb/s, 130/90nm CMOS TX: 117/93mW RX: 205/155mW Sleep: 18/15uW 110Mb/s, 130/90nm CMOS TX: 186/150mW RX: 271/209mW Sleep: 18/15uW • Mode 1 meets desired 300mW(Home theater) and max. 200mW(Portable) Power Consumption • Mode 2 (130nm) may not meet 200mW for Portable • Data for 200Mbps required PC & CF cards, memory stick, and SD memory form factors in 2005 16mmx13.6mmx3mm antenna commercially available Not addressed • Antenna size meets both Home theater and Portable requirement Size • Not clear whether module meets 5mmx5mm requirement for portable devices • Not clear whether Mode 2 same as Mode 1 Data meet CE requirements Data do not meet CE requirements Additional data required Proposal Responses, MB-OFDM (1) Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]

6. Doc. 03/267r5 & 03/268r0 Criteria Comments from CE prospects Mode 1 Mode 2 90% Link success for 8%PER of 1024 bytes: • Performance data for Mode 2 required 110Mbps AWGN: 20.5m CM1: 11.5m CM2: 10.9m CM3: 11.6m CM4: 11m 200Mbps AWGN: 14.1m CM1: 6.9m CM2: 6.3m CM3: 6.8m CM4: 5.0m Range and coverage AWGN: 18.4m CM1: CM2: CM3: CM4: • 98% Link success at 7m (required) and 10m (desired) for Home theater not used • 95%Link success at 5m (required) for Portable not used Not disclosed Not disclosed Not disclosed Not disclosed Mandatory: 55Mbps (header), 110, and 200Mbps Optional: 80, 160, 320, and 480Mbps • Data rate set meets requirements Data Rate Sets Data rate: 55-480Mbps Frequency: Mode 1(Mandatory)& Mode 2 (Optional) Complexity: Mandatory data rates require only one DAC & mixer for TX train; Digital section scales with future CMOS process; implementation could always trade off complexity for performance Power: half rate PRF increases off time to enable power saving modes; trade off power consumption for range and data rate Flexibility/ Scalability • Support of higher throughput meets desired requirement • Support for interoperable implementations of lower throughput with reduced cost/complexity not reported Ranging/ Location Awareness • Specific data for range and resolution required Allow positioning accuracy to within a few centimeters Exact mechanism is up to implementation • Not clear whether availability is 1H2005 (required) • Not clear whether Mode 2 availability same time as Mode 1 Not clear whether it’s same as Mode 1 Time to Market Earliest complete CMOS PHY solutions for integration: 2005 • Adaptability meets CE requirements Local Regulatory Adaptability Sub-band can be adjusted for different regulatory areas • FH issue to be cleared by FCC Data do not meet CE requirements Additional data required Data meet CE requirements Proposal Responses, MB-OFDM (2) Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]

7. Criteria Doc. 03/153r10 & 03/154r3 Comments from CE prospects • Total cost/complexity(Silicon+Module/External Components+Antenna) should be compared to relative scale of 802.11a/Bluetooth, 802.11b/Bluetooth for Home theater, Portable applications respectively RF front end: 4.7x4.1mm, 0.18um SiGe PLCP BB: 4.4x4.4mm, 0.18um CMOS 0.18um CMOS/SiGe(RF front end) process in 2002 Gate count: TBD External components: Not disclosed Cost and Complexity • Gate count information required • External components information required 802.11b/g, 802.15.3/4, microwave ovens: Receiver does not respond to either 2.4GHz or 900MHz ISM bands 802.11a: Receiver does not respond to either 5GHz NII bands Processing gain provides SIR>-14dB for narrow band (modulated or tone) interference Notch filter can provide up to 40dB additional interference rejection • No results reported regarding to 10-20cm for Home theater or 1-5cm for Portable devices required for all interference sources Interference Robustness 114/200Mbps: Dint/Dref for CM1-CM4 given in Slide 39, 40 for up to 4 SOP RMS cross-correlation < -15 dB in a flat fading channel Multi-Piconet Support • Degradation of throughput not reported, <50% required • Meet min. required 4 SOP, but 8 is desired Fast Connect Not addressed • New information required TX: 107mW (RF & PLCP) RX: 174mW (RF & PLCP) Sleep: 2mW (PLCP) Idle: 23mW (PLCP) Note: Based on 90nm CMOS • Data meet desired 300mW(Home theater) and required 200mW (Portable) if 90nm CMOS used Power Consumption • Data for processes used in current design required Antenna size: LB: 1.1x1.1 in; HB: 0.6x0.6 in Module size not disclosed External components not disclosed • LB antenna meets required 4cmx4cm for Home theater; HB antenna meets required 2cmx2cm for Portable Size • LB antenna exceeds 2cmx2cm required by Portable • Module size information required • External components information required Data do not meet CE requirements Additional data required Data meet CE requirements Proposal Responses, XSI /ParthusCeva -CDMA (1) Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]

8. Criteria Doc. 03/153r10 & 03/154r3 Comments from CE prospects Average PER for 90% Link success (8% PER) • 98% Link success at 7m (required) and 10m (desired) for Home theater not used • 95%Link success at 5m (required) for Portable not used Range and coverage 114Mbps AWGN: 21.6m CM1: 15m CM2: 13.5m CM3: 11.5m CM4: 10m 200Mbps AWGN: 15.8m CM1: 11.1m CM2: 10m CM3: 8.8m CM4: 7.5m • Performance data for 90% Link successful distance preferred for comparison LB: 28.5-400Mbps HB: 57-800Mbps Duplex: up to 1.2GHz • Data rate set meets requirements Data Rate Sets 4 types of spectral usage (LB, HB, Duplex, Joint band) for up to 1.2Gbps Architecture allows components (FEC, each receiver channel, etc) usage to be adjusted such that incremental hardware additions result in the highest incremental SNR improvement. Flexibility/ Scalability • Support of higher throughput meets desired requirement • Support for interoperable implementations of lower throughput with reduced cost/complexity not reported Ranging/ Location Awareness 10cm resolution in 20m range • Range and resolution meet requirements LB: Production chip end of 2003 HB & Duplex: N/A • LB meets desired 2H2004 Time to Market • Availability of other bands (HB, duplex, joint) required • Availability of CMOS implementation required) Local Regulatory Adaptability Center frequency and bandwidth adjustable without changes of silicon • Adaptability meets CE requirements Data do not meet CE requirements Additional data required Data meet CE requirements Proposal Responses, XSI/ParthusCeva-CDMA (2) Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]

9. Common Issues • Cost/Complexity: • External components, antenna, and PCB should be included in addition to chip die sizes • Multi-piconet support: • No data for SOP more than 4 (8 desired). Please provide data for SOP more that 4. • Degradation of throughput has not been reported. Please provide. • Connection Time: • Please provide Connection Time assessment and data for evaluation • Range/coverage: • Both distance of 90% link success and distance of average PER for 90% link success should be reported, or a conversion factor should be provided. • 98%, 95% Link success distance for Home theater and Portable applications respectively are required. • Path loss exponents used in CM1-CM4 range calculations should be indicated • Flexibility/Scalability: • Support of low throughput for less cost/complexity not mentioned Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]

10. Questions on MB-OFDM Proposal • Time-Frequency Code (TFC) management • Code acquisition methods required for: • New device association • Scanning available TFC to initiate a new piconet • Rotation Sequence (RS) vs. Channelization & Multiple Access (See next slide): • There appears to be a contradiction or ambiguity between the RS method described in 03/268r0, p. 50, Figure 22and the TFC method described in03/268r0, p.35 Table 20. • Please resolve the contradiction. • Which of these two different methods was used to measure the performance reported in MB-OFDM proposal? • Synchronization of TFC • It appears that SOP performance depends on synchronization of THC, i.e. 2 and 1 overlapped sub-bands for Mode 1 and Mode 2 respectively • Unsynchronized TFC of two different piconets will have 4 and 2 overlapped sub-bands for Mode 1, 2 respectively • Scenarios regarding TFC synchronization for SOP performance requires clarification • Collisions of sub-band frequency and adjacent frequency to be accounted for. Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]

11. Source: 03/268r0, p. 50, Figure 22 RS-1 TFC-1 TFC-2 TFC-3 TFC-1 TFC-2 TFC-3 RS-2 TFC-3 TFC-1 TFC-2 TFC-1 TFC-2 TFC-3 • In slide 10 of Doc. 03/267r5 ,”For a given superframe, the time-frequency code is specified in the beacon by the PNC. The time-frequency code is changed from one superframe to another in order to randomize multi-piconet interference” • Randomization of sub-bands by Rotation Sequence (RS), in p.50 of Doc. 03/268r0 Source: 03/268r0, p.35 Table 20 • Four channel no. (TH codes) each mode for multiple access. (slide 21 of Doc. 03/267r5 ) • 1.4.2 of Doc. 03/268r0 (p.35): “Channelization for different piconets is achieved by using different time frequency codes for different piconets.” MB-OFDM - TFC vs. Rotation Sequence Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]

12. Questions on MB-OFDM Proposal - continued • Management of operation mode: • Mode 2 performance data is incomplete. Please provide complete data. • A discussion of the performance of hybrid operations is requested • Mode 1 & 2 in the same piconet. • Mode 1 & 2 used in different piconets, collisions of TFC to be considered • Hybrid SOP performance vs. throughput • How is the decision to change Mode 1 and Mode 2 made? • Who makes the decision to change modes? Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]

13. Questions on XSI/ParthusCeva Proposal • Cost/Complexity and Size: • External components need to be identified. • What is the PLCP baseband gate count? It is listed as TBD (p.6, 03/154r3) • Power consumption: • Power consumption estimate given is for 90nm CMOS (p.6, 03/154r3). • What is power consumption of current design? • This is important since all the performance data reported is for the current process used: • 0.18um SiGe (RF front end) and CMOS(BB) • Time to Market: • The performance data associated with total CMOS implementation (e.g. 90nm, 130nm process) should be reported. • Please address the availability of HB and duplex, joint bands Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]