IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks

1
Project IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless
Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title
DS-UWB PAR Comments Resolution Date
Submitted 8Sept2004 Source John Barr
Company Motorola Address 1303 E. Golf Road,
Schuamburg, IL 60196 Voice1 847 576-8706,
FAX [phone], E-MailJohn.Barr_at_Motorola
.com Re 15-04-0377-11-003a-consolidation-expla
nations-no-vote-confirmation.doc Abstract Respo
nse to 802.15.3a No Vote Comments Purpose Expla
in rationale for how one or more no votes for
confirmation of DS-UWB merger 2 proposal have
been addressed by the merger 2 comment
resolution team. Notice This document has been
prepared to assist the IEEE 802.15. 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 802.15.
2
DS-UWB PAR Comments Resolution

• John R. Barr, Ph.D.
• John.Barr_at_Motorola.com

3
Overview

• Summary of no voter comments regarding violation
  of the 802.15.3a PAR
• Clarification of what was included in Merger 2
  proposal 15-04-0137-03-003a-merger2-proposal-ds-u
  wb-update.doc
• Summary of TG3a PAR http//standards.ieee.org/boa
  rd/nes/projects/802-15-3a.pdf
• Proposed resolution of comments 4, 30, 66, 74,
  153
• Comments from no voters

4
Summary of PAR Comments

• Roberto Aiello The common signaling mode is in
  violation of the PAR.
• Mark Bowles - The inclusion of a common signaling
  mode violates the PAR as I understand it, so this
  would need to be removed from proposal 2 for me
  to consider changing my vote from no to yes.
• Manoj Choudhary - The removal of common signaling
  mode (which violates the PAR) from the proposal
  will make me to reconsider my vote.
• Jason Ellis and Dave Patton - The inclusion of a
  common signaling mode violates the PAR, so this
  would need to be removed from the proposal for me
  to want to change my vote to yes.

5
Merger 2 Proposal 04/137r3

• The words common, signaling, and CSM do not
  exist in 04/137r3.
• The following data rates are specified
• Lower band 28, 55, 110, 220, 500, 660, 1000, and
  1320 Mbps (BPSK) and 110, 220, 500, 660, 1000,
  and 1320 (4-BOK)
• Upper band 55, 110, 220, 500, 660, 1000, 1320
  (BPSK) and 220, 660, 1000, and 1320 (4-BOK)
• CSM does not exist in Merger 2 Proposal at this
  time.

6
Merger 2 Proposal PresentationPortland 04/140R7

• DS-UWB option of Common Signaling Mode (CSM)
  MB-OFDM
• The Merger 2 Proposal team was suggesting a path
  towards a compromise
• The following four slides with yellow headings
  are from 04/140R7
• The fifth slide with the green heading was the
  start of the actual merger 2 proposal

7
Overview of DS-UWB Proposal

• One of the goals of Merged Proposal 2 is DS-UWB
  and MB-OFDM harmonization interoperability
  through a Common Signaling Mode (CSM)
• High rate modes using either DS-UWB or MB-OFDM
• Best characteristics of both approaches with most
  flexibility
• A piconet could have a pair of DS and a pair of
  MB devices
• CSM waveform provides control interoperation
  between DS-UWB and MB-OFDM
• All devices work through an 802.15.3 MAC
• User/device only sees common MAC interface
• Hides the actual PHY waveform in use

8
The Common Signaling ModeWhat Is The Goal?

• The common signaling mode (CSM) allows the
  802.15.3 MAC to arbitrate between multiple UWB
  PHYs
• It is an etiquette to manage peaceful
  coexistence between the different UWB PHYs
• Multiple UWB PHYs will exist in the world
• DS-UWB MB-OFDM are first examples
• CSM improves the case for international
  regulatory approval
• Common control mechanism for a multitude of
  applications
• Planned cooperation (i.e. CSM) gives far better
  QoS and throughput than allowing un-coordinated
  operation and interference
• CSM provides flexibility/extensibility within the
  IEEE standard
• Allows future growth scalability
• Provides options to meet diverse application
  needs
• Enables interoperability and controls interference

9
What Does CSM Look Like?One of the MB-OFDM bands!
Proposed Common Signaling Mode Band (500 MHz
bandwidth) 9-cycles per BPSK chip
DS-UWB Low Band Pulse Shape (RRC) 3-cycles per
BPSK chip
3978
Frequency (MHz)
3100
5100
MB-OFDM (3-band) Theoretical Spectrum
10
CSM Specifics

• We have designed a specific waveform for the CSM
• BPSK modulation for simple and reliable
  performance
• Length 24 spreading codes using 442 MHz chip rate
• Harmonically related center frequency of 3978 MHz
• Rate ½ convolutional code with k6
• Provides 9.2 Mbps throughput
• Extendable up to 110 Mbps using variable code and
  FEC rates
• 802.15.3 MAC works great with CSM
• CSM can be used for control and beaconing
• Negligible impact on piconet throughput (beacons
  are lt1)
• Requires negligible additional cost/complexity
  for either radio
• MB-OFDM already has a DS mode that is used for
  synchronization
• This proposal is based on DS-UWB operating with a
  26 MHz cell-phone crystal
• Very low cost yet terrific phase-noise and
  accuracy (see GSM spec)

11
Overview of DS-UWB Proposal

• DS-UWB proposed as a radio for handheld with
• low-cost,
• ultra high-rate,
• ultra low-power,
• BPSK modulation using variable length spreading
  codes
• Scales to 1 Gbps with low power - essential for
  mobile handheld applications
• Much lower complexity and power consumption

12
Summary of TG3a PAR

• "To provide a standard for a low complexity, low
  cost, low power consumption alternate PHY for
  802.15.3 (comparable to the goals for 802.15.3).
  The data rate will be high enough, 110 Mbps or
  more (see 18a), to satisfy an evolutionary set of
  consumer multi-media industry needs for WPAN
  communications. The project will address the
  requirements to support multimedia data types in
  multiple compliant co-located systems and also
  coexistence (18b).", and the key sentence in 18a
  states "In addition to at least 110 Mbps data
  rate, additional data rates, both lower and
  higher, may be supported.

13
How CSM Does Satisfy 802.15.3a PAR

• To satisfy the 802.15.3a PAR the standard could
  include CSM plus at least one 110 Mbps mode
  (either DS-UWB or MB-OFDM) as mandatory.
• 802.15.3a is an addendum to Std 802.15.3-2003
  which must include all of the ALT PHY dependent
  specifications required to support
  interoperability between devices that conform to
  Std 802.15.3-2003 as amended by 802.15.3a. This
  will include any additions to MAC functionality
  required to support the new ALT PHY, a new PHY
  Specification (another chapter similar to the
  current 2.4 GHz PHY Specification), PHY and MAC
  specific PICS for the ALT PHY, and additional
  general description text (e.g. 5.4
  Characteristics of the 2.4 GHz PHY). The addendum
  text for 802.15.3a could include the appropriate
  text defining how CSM is to be used to allow
  multiple higher rate PHY modes to operate in the
  same piconet.
• A PHY within IEEE 802 does not need to use a
  single modulation technique nor is it necessary
  for all conforming implementations to include all
  of the modulation techniques defined in a
  standard. It is only necessary to conform to
  mandatory modes and implement optional modes
  according to the specifications in the standard.

14
Proposed Resolution of No Comments

• Since 04/137r3 does not include a CSM, all of the
  comments are accepted in principle.
• We have also shown that the CSM does not violate
  the PAR, and a compromise proposal including a
  CSM is a viable option for IEEE 802.15.3a.

15
Comments from No Voters

• Roberto Aiello, Mark Bowles, Manoj Chaudhary,
  Jason Ellis, and Dave Patton
• Do you accept this resolution?