1. doc.: IEEE 802. 15-10-0585-00-0006 Submission July 2010 Didier Sagan, ZarlinkSlide 1 Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: Proposed resolution for TG6 Clause 9 comments S9-66 & S9-67 Date Submitted: 14 July, 2010 Source: Didier Sagan, Zarlink Semiconductor Re: Response to IEEE 802.15.6 Letter Ballot comments Abstract:This document proposes several resolutions for Letter Ballot 55, specifically for the Narrowband PHY section. Purpose:For discussion by IEEE 802.15 TG6 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.

2. doc.: IEEE 802. 15-10-0585-00-0006 Submission July 2010 Didier Sagan, ZarlinkSlide 2 Exerts from Zarlink slides, NB PHY EC conf call Feb 10, 2010: Q4 - What are the basic rules under Annex 1? For operation without duty cycle restriction and without LBT+AFA: band g4 (300kHz) For operation without LBT+AFA outside band g4, duty cycle is limited to –0.1% for the whole band g –1% if band limited to 865-868 MHz (note 5) No duty cycle restriction in ERC/REC 70-03 for operation in band g with LBT+AFA But effective duty cycle can be limited by applicable EN 300 220 (requires min off time) Conclusion Band g4 is too restrictive –Only 300 kHz Practical operation in the 863 – 870 MHz band makes LBT+AFA inevitable No need to limit channelization to 200 kHz given that 7 MHz are available 400 kHz channel spacing provides the balance between data rate and number of channels –Up to 17 channels –Same data rates as in Japan

3. doc.: IEEE 802. 15-10-0585-00-0006 Submission July 2010 Didier Sagan, ZarlinkSlide 3 Exert from Toumaz slides, NB PHY EC conf call Feb 17, 2010: Comparison of Proposals II Zarlink Proposal: - 13 Channels863.2MHz + 0.4*g(n) MHzfor n=0,…,12 Where g(n) = n for 0 ≤ n ≤7, g(n) = n+0.5 for n = 8 g(n) = n+1 for n = 9,g(n) = n+1.5 for 10 ≤ n ≤11 g(n) = n+2.5 for n=12 MedWiN Proposal:- 15 Channels863.2MHz + 0.4*g(n) MHzfor n=0,…,14 Where g(n) = n for 0 ≤ n ≤ 13 g(n) = n+0.5 for n = 14 MedWiN Band plan is less fragmented All Channels in Europe must use LBT, so co-channel existence is predominantly on a TDMA basis

4. doc.: IEEE 802. 15-10-0585-00-0006 Submission July 2010 Didier Sagan, ZarlinkSlide 4 Status of LBT Consensus was reached during EC conf call that LBT+AFA was unavoidable for practical operation in the 863-870 MHz band But was assumed to be mainly a MAC issue As a result no action was taken to ensure that the adequate mechanisms be included in the draft LBT relies on energy detection (ED) ED is described and is one of the CCA mode It should be sufficient given that the exact LBT procedures are given by regulatory requirements –Just need to add wording to make that clear

5. doc.: IEEE 802. 15-10-0585-00-0006 Submission July 2010 Didier Sagan, ZarlinkSlide 5 LBT Comment(s): S9-66, S9-67 –“ It is not clear whether the LBT requirement for the MICS and 863-870 MHz bands is assumed to be implemented using CCA mode 1. If it is, has it been verified that it can be used as such by the MAC? ” –“Does the sentence "Any CCA procedures required by local regulatory requirements shall also be supported" include LBT requirements?” Proposed Resolution: –Change second sentence on line 16 of section 9.8.6 to "Any CCA and LBT procedures required by local regulatory requirements shall also be supported". Discussion: –Clarifies that LBT mechanisms are included in CCA procedures