Doc.: IEEE /0726r0 Submission May 2006 Tom Alexander, VeriWave Inc.Slide 1 P Draft Status – May 2006 Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 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 grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures, including the statement "IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard." Early disclosure to the Working Group of patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair as early as possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being developed within the IEEE Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at. Date: Authors:

Doc.: IEEE /0726r0 Submission May 2006 Tom Alexander, VeriWave Inc.Slide 2 Tom Alexander P Draft Status

Doc.: IEEE /0726r0 Submission May 2006 Tom Alexander, VeriWave Inc.Slide 3 Summary We are at Draft 0.7 Vital statistics: –152 pages –6 Clauses and 1 Annex –6 environments defined –19 metrics defined Completeness: –General skeleton is complete Some proposals are still pending –More metrics and environments being proposed

Doc.: IEEE /0726r0 Submission May 2006 Tom Alexander, VeriWave Inc.Slide 4 Draft Structure Typical Standards Document ItemPresentRemarks Frontmatter Only complete prior to SB / RevCom Clause 1: Overview Clause 2: Normative References Updated as normative clauses change Clause 3: Definitions etc. Need to clean up definitions Clause 4: General frameworkIncompleteNeeds to be filled out Normative Clauses 2 normative Clauses Normative AnnexesN/ANone planned at present Bibliography May move some references here Informative Annexes  At least one proposed, maybe more

Doc.: IEEE /0726r0 Submission May 2006 Tom Alexander, VeriWave Inc.Slide 5 A Brief Review of the PAR Scope of project: The scope of the project is to provide a set of performance metrics, measurement methodologies, and test conditions to enable measuring and predicting the performance of WLAN devices and networks at the component and application level. Additional notes on scope: The project will assume as a baseline the existence of Reaff 2003, with Amendments e, g, h, i, j and k. The project may also take as input the work of Task Groups n, r and s. The project will coordinate with on any potential areas of synergy, such as some of the performance metrics. For the purposes of this project the definition of prediction is as follows: the use of multiple input parameters to estimate performance characteristics useful for network planning. Input parameters are defined to be device characteristics, network layout and usage parameters. The development of prediction algorithms and network planning methodologies do not fall within the scope of this Recommended Practice. Purpose of project: The purpose of the project is to enable testing, comparison, and deployment planning of WLAN devices based on a common and accepted set of performance metrics, measurement methodologies and test conditions.

Doc.: IEEE /0726r0 Submission May 2006 Tom Alexander, VeriWave Inc.Slide 6 Environments Defined EnvironmentSubclauseStated Purpose COAT5.2Over-the-air testing in shielded enclosure Conducted5.3Fully cabled test setups OTA outdoor LOS5.4Over-the-air testing outdoors OTA indoor NLOS5.5Over-the-air testing indoors with multipath OTA indoor LOS5.6Over-the-air testing indoors without multipath OTA shielded enclosure5.7Over-the-air testing in shielded enclosure Subclauses 5.2 and 5.7 seem to have identical purposes –How does the reader select one? Subclauses 5.5 and 5.6 have only minor differences –Consider consolidating to simplify draft

Doc.: IEEE /0726r0 Submission May 2006 Tom Alexander, VeriWave Inc.Slide 7 Metrics Status Originally Proposed MetricPresent?Remarks Throughput FIVE different throughput metrics! Packet loss In conjunction with voice quality Latency, jitter In conjunction with voice quality Rate vs range Expressed as throughput vs. range Receiver sensitivity In conducted environment Adj. channel interference Diversity performance Total radiated power, total isotropic sensitivity  Proposals have been brought forward Antenna radiation pattern  Debate about whether it belongs in the draft AP association capacity/rate Transition time (roaming) Includes fast BSS transition Voice quality  Subsumed by loss / latency / jitter? Image quality  Proposals have been observed Bandwidth utilization  No proposals, no definition

Doc.: IEEE /0726r0 Submission May 2006 Tom Alexander, VeriWave Inc.Slide 8 Known Open Items Clause 4 (Framework) has many gaping holes –Need contributions on: metrics tables correlating to use cases, general examples, etc. Figures to be redrawn per IEEE-SA requirements –Will be done by editor at appropriate point (before WG ballot) Inconsistencies or omissions marked by editor’s notes –3.2 –5.2.2 (several), , 5.3.4, –6.2.1, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Doc.: IEEE /0726r0 Submission May 2006 Tom Alexander, VeriWave Inc.Slide 9 Major Issues Noted in Past Meetings Many metrics report “throughput”, but measured differently –Need a standard definition of “throughput” if we’re going to deviate from the wired LAN norm –Some of the metrics don’t really mean “throughput” when they say “throughput”, they mean “forwarding rate” or sometimes even just some kind of average data transfer rate The eternal debate on error bounds –Perhaps we should start a PAR for TGT(e) Need to split out some of the frequently duplicated material into a “common requirements” section –Examples: reporting requirements, standard frame sizes, etc. –This has been discussed as well