November 2003 doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/0475r0 November 2003 Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Ad-Hoc TG3a Characterization Activities] Date Submitted: [10-Nov-03] Source: [Tom Siep] Company [TMS Consulting] Address [Suite 100, ms 365, 1802 Pleasant Valley Dr, Garland, TX, USA, 75040] Voice:[+1 972 496 0766], FAX: [+1 469 366 1480], E-Mail:[tom.siep@ieee.org] Re: [Original] Abstract: [Summary of offline discussions on how to make technical progress ] Purpose: [Inform the voters of 802.15 on the progress of the characterization activities.] 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. Tom Siep, TMS Consulting Tom Siep, TMS Consulting

Ad-Hoc TG3a Characterization Activities November 2003 Ad-Hoc TG3a Characterization Activities Tom Siep TMS Consulting Tom Siep, TMS Consulting

Overview Original Purpose Original Spirit of Cooperation November 2003 Overview Original Purpose Original Spirit of Cooperation What Really Happened Where we go from here Evaluation of Process Tom Siep, TMS Consulting

Original Purpose Create a forum for the proposers November 2003 doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/0475r0 November 2003 Original Purpose Create a forum for the proposers CP1 – Combined Proposal #1 (MB-OFDM) CP2 – Combined Proposal #2 (XSI/Parthus/Oki/CRL) Help make timely progress on: Identifying and Communicating technical issues concerning the two proposals How to compare them Provide a forum for the definition of commonly accepted Scenarios Assumptions Measurement Methodology Tom Siep, TMS Consulting Tom Siep, TMS Consulting

Original Spirit of Cooperation November 2003 Original Spirit of Cooperation Participants agreed: History is gone (“they never…” and “they always…” are not acceptable) Agree to a fair technical comparison (unfounded jibes are not acceptable) Follow through with commitments (no-shows to meetings are not acceptable) Complete disclosure (“you will have to wait ‘til Nov to see this” are not acceptable) The goal is to inform membership prior to November meeting No partial results are to be released outside committee Tom Siep, TMS Consulting

Table of Contents of Working Document November 2003 doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/0475r0 November 2003 Table of Contents of Working Document X = Contentious Evaluation Section Topic CP1 CP2 1. Introduction 2. References 3. Definitions of Alt Phy Proposals To Be Evaluated 4. Performance/Complexity Comparison 4.1. Unit Manufacturing Cost/Complexity 4.2. Signal Robustness x 4.3. Location Awareness 5. Phy Layer Criteria (Values) 5.1. Phy-Sap Data Throughput 5.2. Simultaneously Operating Piconets 5.3. Signal Acquisition 5.4. System Performance 5.5. Link Budget 5.6. Sensitivity 5.7. Power Consumption 6. Interference to Existing Services 6.1. 6.2. Interference Analysis X 6.3. Reference Interference Levels 6.4. Specific Receivers for Analysis Tom Siep, TMS Consulting Tom Siep, TMS Consulting

November 2003 Where Do We Go From Here? During the ABQ meeting the group may hold f2f sessions – if that is deemed to be useful to the IEEE process At the end of ABQ meeting three possible outcomes CP1 wins affirmation CP2 wins affirmation No one is affirmed If the last outcome happens, there MAY be need for this group to continue work Tom Siep, TMS Consulting

November 2003 Evaluation of Process Overall personal evaluation: we did not do as much as I had hoped, but what we did accomplish was good work and will help the IEEE process Everyone involved was engaged in a good faith effort I do not believe any deliverables were intentionally delayed and people did their best to get this extra work done In general, everyone was well behaved (or quickly changed behavior and became well behaved) It was worth doing, the down selection process should now proceed Tom Siep, TMS Consulting