Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [802.15.3e Naming Proposal] Date Submitted: [5 Nov 2015] Source: [Andrew Estrada] Company [Sony] Address [San Diego, CA, USA] Voice:[+1.858.942.5483], E-Mail:[Andrew.Estrada@am.sony.com] Re: [802.15.3e Naming Proposal] Abstract: [Naming proposal for the 802.15.3e amendment] Purpose: [] 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.

Naming the new network? 802.15.3 network is called a Piconet: Can be one or many devices Can have child Piconets Can be scanned and discovered 802.15.3e network: let’s call it P2Pnet Can it have 1 device? Yes Can it be scanned? Yes Other possible names?

Editing strategy? Existing text: make clear it applies only to Piconet. New text: make clear only applies to P2Pnet If new text utilizes existing features, DO NOT repeat the text, simply reference existing text

The trouble with P2P P2P, or Point to point, is a widely recognized term in network and communications terminology. Readers may interpret P2P or P2P structure with a meaning different from our intended meaning in the spec.

3 Types of Edits Type 1: Only applies to Piconet Type 2: Only applies to P2Pnet Type 3: Applies to both or either -> reference

Amending each type of text Type 1: Piconet: Leave as is. No change Type 2: P2Pnet: Insert new text, clearly specify P2Pnet

What if text applies to both/either? Type 3: New Text, clearly specify “Piconet or P2Pnet” or “Piconet and P2Pnet”. Type 3: Existing text, insert phrase “or P2Pnet” or “and P2Pnet”

What about PNPP? Is PNPP really required? PNPP = Piconet and P2P. It is not a new network, topology, protocol, or other item. It is merely shorthand for two independent networks. Not necessary to replace every mention of Piconet with PNPP.

What about HRCP? HRCP refers to the use case enabled by the .3e spec. What is the proper usage of HRCP in the draft? Can P2Pnet and HRCP be used interchangeably? Use only P2Pnet to differentiate from Piconet. Use HRCP when referring to the use case

What about HRCP? HRCP could be used to describe the device. Ex: The P2Pnet includes only HRCP devices. HRCP can distinguish from DEV and PNC How about HRCP DEV (HDEV) and HRCP Connection (HCON)? HRCP Link (HLINK)?

Straw Poll To describe the new topology, do you prefer P2Pnet or HRCPxxx -> HRCPxxx Do you prefer HRCPnet (Hnet) (1), or HRCP Link (HRCPlink) (14), or HRCP Connection (HCON) (2), or HRCP Communication (HCOM) (0), or CP Link (CPlink) (10), or CPnet (4), or HRCP Wireless Cable (1)

2nd Straw Poll Do you prefer HRCP Link (11) or CP Link (10)? Straw poll is almost tied. To be discussed and reviewed further.