doc.: IEEE g Submission September 2009 Tim Schmidl, Texas Instruments Inc.Slide 1 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Report from FSK Breakout Session] Date Submitted: [September 2009] Source: [Tim Schmidl] Company [Texas Instruments] Address [12500 TI Blvd, Dallas, TX USA] Voice:[ ], FAX: [ ], Abstract:[This is the report from the FSK breakout session] Purpose:[For information] Notice:This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P 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 P

doc.: IEEE g Submission September 2009 Tim Schmidl, Texas Instruments Inc.Slide 2 FSK Breakout Sept. 23, 2009, 2-6 pm Sept. 24, 11:40am-12:20pm

doc.: IEEE g Submission September 2009 Tim Schmidl, Texas Instruments Inc.Slide 3 Agenda Major points of differences (Listing and ranking) Capture major commonalities Capture agreed points

doc.: IEEE g Submission September 2009 Tim Schmidl, Texas Instruments Inc.Slide 4 Major Points of Differences MODERATE –CRC (CRC-32 Koopman vs CRC-32) –Data whitening (which algorithm, seed) –Header FEC (mandatory or optional and which FEC) (which BCH (48,24) vs (15,11)) –Payload FEC (both agree it is optional but which FEC) (Conv rate ½ or LDPC vs. RS) –Frame structure –Switch frame format on SFD (value, how many) –Fast Hopping –Network ID formats –Rate shifting in the PHY –Modulation parameters –Number of channels / channel spacing DIFFICULT –Data Rates (which rate is mandatory) (5/10/20/40 and 50/100/200/400 vs 40/(80)/160/320) –Legacy support –Common signaling (MP,NICT) –Interoperability (solve at PHY and/or higher layers)

doc.: IEEE g Submission September 2009 Tim Schmidl, Texas Instruments Inc.Slide 5 Major Points of Commonality –Frequency bands –Japanese data rates (400 and 950 MHz) based on 15.4d –15.4d frame format for Japan with different SFD than used elsewhere –GFSK modulation –BT=0.5 value –Low / medium / high data rate sets –Allows mesh support –Narrowband is supported –1 Mandatory data rate per band –Band adaptation approach

doc.: IEEE g Submission September 2009 Tim Schmidl, Texas Instruments Inc.Slide 6 Agreed Points (outside of the proposals) –DSSS can be supported –OFDM can be supported

doc.: IEEE g Submission September 2009 Tim Schmidl, Texas Instruments Inc.Slide 7 Topics for Further Discussion –PHY classes (FSK only, FSK+OFDM, FSK+DSSS, FSK+OFDM+DSSS) OR PNC (piconet controller) capable device or not

doc.: IEEE g Submission September 2009 Tim Schmidl, Texas Instruments Inc.Slide 8 Proposed Way Forward (Tentative) –CRC (CRC-32 Koopman vs CRC-32) Straw Poll Result: Further study = = 26 No further study = 0 Steve Pope will facilitate further study of Koopman CRC and Larry will provide contact information for Technical Advisory Group –Data whitening (which polynomial, seed) Cristina to verify that polynomials in all 3 proposals are the same. SFF is not transmitting the seed for each packet MP uses the channel number as input to the seed CPP has an optional 8 bit seed Agree that data whitening is important. When frequency hopping the scrambler seed is based on channel number and is not transmitted in the header. Two bits are reserved in the PHY header which are reserved for future use in frequency hopping systems and for the scrambler seed in non-hopping systems. –Header FEC (mandatory or optional and which FEC) (which BCH (48,24,t=4) vs (15,11,t=1)) Header FEC should be significantly more robust than the payload FEC. Whether header FEC is optional or mandatory will be under further study according to the principle that the header error rate should be significantly lower than the payload error rate. [Straw Poll: Optional = 9+13 = 22; Mandatory = 6+9 = 15 ] –Payload FEC (both agree it is optional but which FEC) (Conv rate ½ or LDPC vs. RS) Continue development of convolutional code and Reed-Solomon code –Frame structure The usefulness of network ID was discussed. Daniel Popa volunteered to submit some data on this topic. –Switch frame format on SFD (value, how many) –Fast Hopping –Network ID formats –Rate shifting in the PHY –Modulation parameters –Number of channels / channel spacing