1. <month year>
Denver, March 2006
Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Submission Title: SG-BAN opening / closing report
Date Submitted: March, 2006
Source: Erik Schylander, Philips
Voice: ,
Abstract: Opening / Closing Report for the 15 Study Group BAN session in Denver, USA.
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
Erik Schylander, Philips
Erik Schylander, Philips

2. Welcome to Study Group Body Area Networks 802.15 - SGB
<month year>
Denver, March 2006
SGB
Welcome to
Study Group
Body Area Networks
Erik Schylander, Philips
Erik Schylander, Philips

3. SG-BAN Meeting Objectives
<month year>
Denver, March 2006
SG-BAN Meeting Objectives
Call for SG-BAN Chair and Secretary position
To do by to WG15 reflector pending SG approval
Review of SG charter
Done
SG process planning
Draft approved
Define Study items
Presentations
Medical sensor networks using Body Area Network (BAN) - Kenichi Takizawa, NICT
Call for Usage scenarios, Applications and Services
To be submitted pending SG approval
Draft editor : Stefan Drude
Call for Technology
To be submitted at May meeting
Tutorial session for the July meeting
Coordinator Ryuji Kohno, NICT
Erik Schylander, Philips
Erik Schylander, Philips

4. Review IEEE/802 & 802.15 Policies and Rules
Denver, March 2006
Review IEEE/802 & Policies and Rules
Study Group: Everyone can vote
All 802 policies apply
All policies apply
Submissions must meet document format criteria and be on the server
Technical Study Group voting requires 75% consensus else 50%.
Chair decides on technical or procedural
Erik Schylander, Philips

5. BAN Study Group charter
Denver, March 2006
BAN Study Group charter
Select officers
Chair
Secretary
Write the PAR (Project Description)
Write the 5C (criteria)
Ask for the WG approval (of the documents) to be sent to ExCom for further approval processing to start a new TG.
Erik Schylander, Philips

6. IEEE 802 Five Criteria BROAD MARKET POTENTIAL COMPATIBILITY
Denver, March 2006
IEEE 802 Five Criteria
BROAD MARKET POTENTIAL
Broad sets of applicability
Multiple vendors, numerous users
COMPATIBILITY
DISTINCT IDENTITY
Substantially different from other 802 Projects
One unique solution per problem (not two solutions to a problem)
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
Demonstrated system feasibility
Proven technology, reasonable testing
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
Known cost factors, reliable data
Reasonable cost for performance
Erik Schylander, Philips

7. 802.15 BAN PAR New Standard or Extension / Amendment ? Scope
Denver, March 2006
BAN PAR
DRAFT Project Authorization Request (PAR) for Body Area Networks (BAN)
New Standard or Extension / Amendment ?
Scope
Purpose of proposed project
Intellectual Property
Other standards or projects with a similar scope?
Erik Schylander, Philips

8. Denver, March 2006
BAN scope
Ref. Doc wng0 body-area-networks-update-and-criteria-study-group.ppt
Body “attached” devices, on battery power
Distance 2 m std, 5 m special
Piconet density nets / m2
Devices per network max. 100
Net network throughput max. 100 Mbps
Power consumption ~ 1mW / Mbps 1 m distance)
Latency (end to end) 10 ms
Network setup time < 1 sec
Erik Schylander, Philips

9. BAN study items BAN Scope Market characteristics and requirements
Denver, March 2006
BAN Scope
Market characteristics and requirements
Usage scenarios and applications
Device classes, Application specific devices and services
BAN topography, technology, channel models and metrics
BAN Scalability, bitrate / throughput, range, QoS, power consumption, power saving support
BAN Security, safety requirements and models
Regulatory compliance, Spectrum allocation and coexistence
IPR
Erik Schylander, Philips

10. Call for Applications (editor ?) Call for Technology (editor Drude)
Denver, March 2006
Issues
SG draft plan
Call for Applications (editor ?)
Call for Technology (editor Drude)
Call for Regulatory aspects
Will be included in the SfA and CfT
Tutorial sessions (invite medical service organization, a.o.) for July meeting (coordinator Ryuji Kohno, NICT)
Erik Schylander, Philips

11. SG 1st draft planning Mar 06 May 06 July 06 Sep 06 Nov 06
Denver, March 2006
SG 1st draft planning
Mar 06
Submit Call for Applications (editor Drude)
May 06
Elect chair & secretary
Presentation of Call responses
Submit Call for Technology and Regulatory issues (editor)
July 06
Tutorial session
1st draft PAR & 5C (editors)
Sep 06
2nd draft PAR & 5C
Nov 06
Final draft PAR & 5C
Erik Schylander, Philips

12. Call for BAN Usage Scenarios and Applications
Denver, March 2006
Doc r0
Usage scenario / application / service
Specific characteristics and requirements:
Throughput, range
QoS
Latency, jitter, PER,,
Power consumption
Active, Stand by,
Device class
Network type
Scalability
Security aspects
Human Safety requirements
Spectrum allocation and coexistence
Regulatory aspects
Erik Schylander, Philips

13. Call for Technology (planned for May)
Denver, March 2006
Will depend on Usage / Application requirements
Includes:
PHY
MAC
Network architecture
BAN topography, technology, channel models and metrics
BAN Scalability, bitrate / throughput, range, QoS, power consumption, power saving support
Regulatory compliance, Spectrum allocation and coexistence
IPR
Erik Schylander, Philips

14. Denver, March 2006
Presentations
IEEE "Medical sensor networks: Promising Body Area Network Applications “ - Kenichi Takizawa, NICT
Erik Schylander, Philips

15. Plans for May 2006 meeting Elect chair & secretary
Denver, March 2006
Plans for May 2006 meeting
Elect chair & secretary
Presentation of Call responses
Submit Call for Technology and Regulatory issues (editor)
Erik Schylander, Philips

16. Thank You ! Any Questions ? Denver, March 2006
Erik Schylander, Philips

17. Project Authorization Request (PAR)
Denver, March 2006
Project Authorization Request (PAR)
Use of Nescom Form
13. Scope of Proposed Project
(See NesCom Conventions – Item #6, Item #16, Item #17)
Briefly detail the projected output including technical boundaries
Is the completion of this document contingent upon the completion of another document?
14. Purpose of Proposed Project
(Briefly, clearly and concisely explain “why” the document is being created
(See NesCom Conventions – Item #16)
15. Reason for the Proposed Project
Give the specific reason for the standardization project. Focus on explaining the problem being addressed, the benefits to be provided and the stakeholders for the project.
Erik Schylander, Philips

18. Criteria for Standards Development (5C)
Denver, March 2006
Criteria for Standards Development (5C)
1. Broad Market Potential
A standards project authorized by IEEE 802 shall have a broad market potential. Specifically, it shall have the potential for:
a) Broad sets of applicability.
b) Multiple vendors and numerous users.
c) Balanced costs (LAN versus attached stations).
2. Compatibility
IEEE 802 defines a family of standards. All standards shall be in conformance with the IEEE Architecture, Management, and Interworking documents as follows:
802. Overview and Architecture, 802.1D, 802.1Q, and parts of 802.1f. If any variances in conformance emerge, they shall be thoroughly disclosed and reviewed with 802. Each standard in the IEEE 802 family of standards shall include a definition of managed objects that are compatible with systems management standards.
Erik Schylander, Philips

19. Criteria for Standards Development (5C)
Denver, March 2006
Criteria for Standards Development (5C)
3. Distinct Identity
Each IEEE 802 standard shall have a distinct identity. To achieve this, each authorized project shall be:
a) Substantially different from other IEEE 802 standards.
b) One unique solution per problem (not two solutions to a problem).
c) Easy for the document reader to select the relevant specification.
4. Technical Feasibility
For a project to be authorized, it shall be able to show its technical feasibility. At a minimum, the proposed project shall show:
a) Demonstrated system feasibility.
b) Proven technology, reasonable testing.
c) Confidence in reliability.
Erik Schylander, Philips

20. Criteria for Standards Development (5C)
Denver, March 2006
Criteria for Standards Development (5C)
5. Economic Feasibility
For a project to be authorized, it shall be able to show economic feasibility (so far as can reasonably be estimated) for its intended applications. At a minimum, the proposed project shall show:
a) Known cost factors, reliable data.
b) Reasonable cost for performance.
c) Consideration of installation costs.
Erik Schylander, Philips