July 2004 Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [PHY Comparison Checklist] Date Submitted: [15 July 2004] Source: [Robert Poor] Company [Ember Corporation] Address [313 Congress Street, Boston MA 02210] Voice:[+1 617 951-0200], FAX: [+1 617 951-0999], E-Mail:[rpoor @ ieee . org] Re: [] Abstract: [This document presents a set of common criteria for comparing sub-GHz PHY designs submitted in response to the TG4b call for proposals 15-04-0239-xx-004b.] Purpose: [This document is intended to encourage discussion within the IEEE 802.15.4 TG4b task group.] 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. Robert Poor, Ember Corporation

PHY Comparison Checklist July 2004 PHY Comparison Checklist Robert Poor <rpoor @ ieee . org> Robert Poor, Ember Corporation

doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#> <month year> doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#> July 2004 Motivation This document presents a checklist of metrics for comparing sub-GHz PHY designs submitted in response to the TG4b Call For Proposals document 15-04-0239. This checklist is intended as a tool to aid in the comparison of various PHY proposals and to promote discussion. Robert Poor, Ember Corporation <author>, <company>

July 2004 Choice of Metrics The comparison metrics presented here are intended to be: Relevant: appropriate to the goals of the 15.4 PAR. Malleable: they will evolve as a result of discussion. Non-binding: they are presented to accelerate discussion, not to guarantee design goals. Robert Poor, Ember Corporation

On using this checklist July 2004 On using this checklist You are encouraged to characterize more than one design. For example, you might profile a baseline system alongside a lower-cost design that highlights particular strengths of your proposal. Designs should account for all components relevant to the PHY, from the antenna port to a “bit pipe” to and from the MAC. It should include frequency synthesizers, etc. Robert Poor, Ember Corporation

Transmit Characteristics July 2004 Transmit Characteristics Transmit Power Bits Per Second Transmitted Spectrum Robert Poor, Ember Corporation

Receiver Characteristics July 2004 Receiver Characteristics Sensitivity (10-4 BER) BER vs. Eb/N0 [AWGN] BER vs. Eb/N0 [in-band interferer] P(sync) vs. Eb/N0 [probability of detecting packet start delimiter as a function of Eb/N0] Robert Poor, Ember Corporation

Power Requirements Power consumption during Tx July 2004 Power Requirements Power consumption during Tx Power consumption during Rx Power consumption during sleep Other power modes (e.g. idle, PLL running) Startup/transition times (sleep to Rx, etc) Robert Poor, Ember Corporation

Chip Cost Area of analog circuitry (mm2) July 2004 Chip Cost Area of analog circuitry (mm2) Gate count of digital circuitry Manufacturing Process (e.g. CMOS) # of external components Cost of external components Robert Poor, Ember Corporation

External Properties What are the IP or licensing encumbrances? July 2004 External Properties What are the IP or licensing encumbrances? Does the design conform to currently allocated spectrum? What does “Diddy-wa-diddy” mean? Other… Robert Poor, Ember Corporation