1. doc.: IEEE 802.15- 05-0096-00-001a Submission March 2004 Tom Siep, TMS Assoicates, LLCSlide 1 Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [TG1a Closing Report] Date Submitted: [15-Nov-04] Source: [Tom Siep] Company [TMS Associates, LLC] Address [Suite 100, ms 365, 1802 Pleasant Valley Dr, Garland, TX, USA, 75040] Voice:[+1 972 496 0766], FAX: [+1 469 366 1480], E-Mail:[tom.siep@ieee.org] Re: [If this is a proposed revision, cite the original document.] Abstract:[Description of document contents.] Purpose:[Description of what the author wants P802.15 to do with the information in the document.] 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- 05-0096-00-001a Submission March 2004 Tom Siep, TMS Assoicates, LLCSlide 2 TG1a Closing Report Tom Siep TMS Associates, LLC Chair TG1a

3. doc.: IEEE 802.15- 05-0096-00-001a Submission Jan 2005 Tom Siep, TMS Assoicates, LLCSlide 3 RevCom Comments on Resolution Two types of concerns were noted in the preliminary review of the 802.15.1a sponsor ballot package. The first was the Ballot Resolution Committee’s (BRC’s) answer to a technical comment lodged by a voter. –GILB043 Comment resolution The second was a comment that not all editorial comments lodged by SCC14 were accepted. –SCC14 Comments resolutions FRYS007 FRYS008 FRYS009

4. doc.: IEEE 802.15- 05-0096-00-001a Submission March 2004 Tom Siep, TMS Assoicates, LLCSlide 4 RevCom Concern with GILB043 Comment Resolution 2 RevCom members had the following comments on GILB043 Member 1, DISAPPROVE: I am leaning toward disapprove because the WG actually agreed with a negative balloter that they are not the proper WG for this project. I admit that I do not fully understand the issue involving authority of the 802 sponsored WG. Maybe some of the RevCom Computer Society members can shed some light on this. Member 2, APPROVE: What is the answer to the questions raised about the objection that the WG cannot make changes, yet it is a revision. Is this proper?

5. doc.: IEEE 802.15- 05-0096-00-001a Submission March 2004 Tom Siep, TMS Assoicates, LLCSlide 5 Original Comment GILB043 (technical) Comment : This standard does not conform to the IEEE 802 procedure where the WG is empowered to make changes. For this standard, the WG can only suggest changes, the Bluetooth SIG is the only body that can authorize normative changes. Suggested Resolution: Move this activity to a more appropriate group, e.g., the IEEE CAG would be the correct home for this activity. Without the right of the WG to make changes to the draft standard, this document does not belong in IEEE 802. Response: We agree, but this should have been raised and resolved when 802 agreed on the terms on which they would create this standard. There is now a commitment which the TG and WG must fulfill.

6. doc.: IEEE 802.15- 05-0096-00-001a Submission March 2004 Tom Siep, TMS Assoicates, LLCSlide 6 Explanation of Response What was said What was meant 1)We agree, 2)but this should have been raised and resolved when 802 agreed on the terms on which they would create this standard. 3)There is now a commitment which the TG and WG must fulfill. 1)We understand that this process is different than what goes on in other 802 groups 2)The Bluetooth SIG and the IEEE have a contractual relationship that defines a different process and we have executed this process in creating the original 802.15.1 standard 3)This ballot is a revision of the original standard and your comment is out of scope of the PAR and therefore is declined.

7. doc.: IEEE 802.15- 05-0096-00-001a Submission March 2004 Tom Siep, TMS Assoicates, LLCSlide 7 Better Response to GILB043 Comment: This standard does not conform to the IEEE 802 procedure where the WG is empowered to make changes. For this standard, the WG can only suggest changes, the Bluetooth SIG is the only body that can authorize normative changes. Response: The Ballot Resolution Committee (BRC) disagrees with the assertions of this comment. The PAR was very specific about the allowed scope of change and to do other than the changes made would have violated the PAR.

8. doc.: IEEE 802.15- 05-0096-00-001a Submission March 2004 Tom Siep, TMS Assoicates, LLCSlide 8 Scope of 802.15.1a PAR The scope of this project is limited to incorporating the changes between 802-15-1-2002 (Bluetooth specification 1.1) and Bluetooth Specification 1.2 into 802-15-1-2002. The scope of the original project was: To define PHY and MAC specifications for wireless connectivity with fixed, portable and moving devices within or entering a Personal Operating Space (POS). A goal of the WPAN Group will be to achieve a level of interoperability which could allow the transfer of data between a WPAN device and an 802.11 device. A Personal Operating Space (POS) is the space about a person or object that typically extends up to 10 meters in all directions and envelops the person whether stationary or in motion. The proposed WPAN Standard will be developed to ensure coexistence with all 802.11 Networks.

9. doc.: IEEE 802.15- 05-0096-00-001a Submission March 2004 Tom Siep, TMS Assoicates, LLCSlide 9 RevCom Concern with SCC14 Resolution It appears that some SCC14 comments were not accepted either in whole or in part. SCC14 must agree with the resolution of all comments in Draft 6. Conditionally Approve: Contingent on SCC14 comment satisfaction.

10. doc.: IEEE 802.15- 05-0096-00-001a Submission March 2004 Tom Siep, TMS Assoicates, LLCSlide 10 Comment FRYS007 (editorial) Comment: –The symbol dBm is used to indicate a level logarithmically based on 1 mW. This should be rewritten as “dB (1 mW)” for a condensed form used in tables. Within body text the proper form of the quantity symbols are used—either “LP(re 1 mW)” or “LP/mW” and the unit symbol then is “dB” only. If all levels of power are referenced to the milliwatt, then that may be stated and the simpler quantity symbol LP may be used. Thus, the options are (showing a typical value): – 20 dB (1 mW) in a table LP(re 1 mW) = 20 dB in text LP/mW = 20 dB in text LP = 20 dB in text with announcement that all levels are referenced to 1 mW –There would be no objection if all instances of dBm were changed to dB in this table and a note provided to indicate that all levels are referenced to 1 mW. But since this also occurs in some textual matter, the authors may wish to make a statement near the front of the document, say in a definition entry for power level, and stipulate there that all levels are referenced to 1 mW. Then, whether in text, in tables, or on charts the simple and proper “dB” [IEEE Std 260.1; NIST SP 811, Sec. 8.7; see also footnote h to table 6 in both NIST SP 330 and The International System of Units (BIPM)] Resolution: –dBm is a commonly used expression in communications technologies. Use of alternate forms would be confusing to the intended audience. Reconsideration of resolution: –BRC stands by previous judgment

11. doc.: IEEE 802.15- 05-0096-00-001a Submission March 2004 Tom Siep, TMS Assoicates, LLCSlide 11 FRYS008 (editorial) Comment: –In the first and third paragraphs, just above table 5, the unit symbol dBi is used. I have no idea what that is or what reference level is intended, though I have viewed many antenna gain tables and charts as a amateur radio operator. Resolution: –The expression dBi is used to define the gain of an antenna system relative to an isotropic radiator at radio frequencies. The symbol is an abbreviation for "decibels relative to isotropic." and is a common term used in wireless telecommunications. Reconsideration of resolution: –BRC stands by previous judgment

12. doc.: IEEE 802.15- 05-0096-00-001a Submission March 2004 Tom Siep, TMS Assoicates, LLCSlide 12 FRYS009 (editorial) Comment: –The unit symbol Mbps is used in lieu of the correct symbol Mb/s. Resolution: –Mbps is the commonly accepted form in telecommunications. Reconsideration of resolution: –BRC stands by previous judgment