1. November 2003
doc.: IEEE /0475r0
November 2003
Project: IEEE P 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:[ ], FAX: [ ],
Re: [Original]
Abstract: [Summary of offline discussions on how to make technical progress ]
Purpose: [Inform the voters of on the progress of the characterization activities.]
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
Tom Siep, TMS Consulting
Tom Siep, TMS Consulting

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

3. 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

4. Original Purpose Create a forum for the proposers
November 2003
doc.: IEEE /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

5. 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

6. Table of Contents of Working Document
November 2003
doc.: IEEE /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

7. 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

8. 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