monterey, ca tg3a minutes - ieee standards association · web viewtitle monterey, ca tg3a minutes...

January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

IEEE P802.15Wireless Personal Area Networks

Project IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)

Title Monterey Meeting Minutes

Date Submitted

20 January 2005

Source [Gerald W. Wineinger][TI][Dallas, Texas]

Voice: [214 480 1013]Fax: [214 480 6662]E-mail: [[email protected]]

Re: 802.15.3a Task Group Monterey Meeting Minutes

Abstract Minutes of Task Group 3a in Monterey

Purpose Minutes of Task Group 3a in Monterey

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.

CONTENTS

Monday, 17 January 2005 Session 1 - 3

Wednesday, 19 January 2005Sessions 4 - 6

Thursday, 20 January 2005Sessions 7

Submission Gerald W. Wineinger, TI

January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

MONDAY, 17 January 2005

Session 1

The task group (TG) chairman, Bob Heile, called the session to order at 11:58 AM after many power problems were worked on and not completely resolved.

The chairman made the following announcements:

Prior to Berlin meeting opinions were filed to IEEE on procedures used in 802.15.3a. After working with the executive IEE committee members it was recommended that we only have anonymous voting. This procedure will continue. If you desire to change that please send Paul, Karen, and copy the chair on reasons to change it.

We will no longer do door monitoring

Ian Gifford asks if confirmation is 75% or higher will we continue to use anonymous voting. The chair responded that at that point we would be open and not use anonymous voting.

Matt Shoemake stated that he is basically against the anonymous voting and asked the chair’s reason for doing the anonymous voting.

The chair said that block voting, and other disturbing issues were the prime factor and after discussing this with the IEEE executive staff that this was the suggestion.

Matt asked if someone made a motion to stop the anonymous voting what would happen.

The chair said he would call it “out of order” based on the fact that IEEE ruled on it and it came from 802 policies and procedures.

Matt said at the last meeting in November in San Antonio we were told that the anonymous voting was a directive, now it seems that it was a suggestion. The chair agreed.

Dave Leeper said he thought the anonymous voting was not a good idea. And that it might be somewhat harmful. The chair said put that in an email and send to Paul, Karen, and copy him.

Call for contributions:


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

Contribution Presentation WorksheetItem Name Doc title Ref Time

1 WELBORN Review of Recent UWB Regulatory Activity 037 30

2 AIELLO Recent UWB Regulatory Activity 044 30

3 ALL Open dialog / discussion on moving process 60

TOTAL 120

The chair reminded everyone of the special order of the day on Wednesday at 10:30 AM to vote on the 2nd confirmation.

John Barr asked to discuss possible compromise before the “New Data” presentations. The Chair said that would not flow correctly and said we’ll keep the agenda as it is.

The chair asked for approval of the agenda document 15-04-0697-03-003a; Ian Gifford made a motion to accept the agenda and Joe Decuir seconded it. The agenda was approved by unanimous consent.

The chair then asked for approval of the minutes document 15-04-0638-05-003a Motion to accept the minutes was from John Barr, seconded by James Gilb. The minutes were then approved by unanimous consent.

The first presentation of the day was given by John Barr on DS-UWB IPR Comments ResolutionDocument # 15-04-0455-01-003a.

Highlights were:• Summary of no voter comments regarding IPR.• IEEE policy on patent claims in IEEE standards• Proposed resolution of patent comments• Within the IEEE-SA standards process, essential patent claims are allowed as long as the

companies holding essential patent claims agree to license those patents to companies implementing a device that conforms to a current IEEE standard.

• Essential patent:• Essential patents are those patents whose infringement is, or in the case of patent

applications, potential future infringement the applicant asserts will be, unavoidable in a compliant implementation of either mandatory or optional portions of a standard. The oversight of the IEEE process is only concerned with essential patents


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

• The chair informs the members of the working group that if any individual believes that a patent or patent application might be essential to the implementation of the standard, that fact should be made known to the entire working group.

• Anyone can respond to this call, be they observers or members of the group. There is no obligation to search patent portfolios and no patent numbers are required to be identified as part of the call for patents--just information that something may be of issue. Once the chair is made aware of this, he or she can send out a patent letter of assurance request to the potential patent holder for official confirmation of information.

• The patent letter of assurance request is a formal request from IEEE standards developers to potential patent holders both for information concerning their patent and whether the patent holder will be willing to license that patent for use on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms.

• There are three general responses that you can expect to a patent letter of assurance request:

• That someone has essential patents and that they'll license them• That someone has essential patents and won't license them• That someone isn't aware of any essential patents

• Of course, there may also be no response.• The response from the patent holder serves as further guidance as to whether or not to

proceed with the inclusion of the referenced patented technology in the draft standard. • If your working group chooses to include possible patented technology in its draft

standard, early disclosure of such patents is critical to avoid problems later on in the development process. Early disclosure notifies you and the IEEE of the patent in the most timely manner and gives you and potential patent holders the greatest opportunity to evaluate the benefits that the patented technology may offer your draft standard. However, you should not take any action that could be interpreted as requiring any participant in the development process to undertake a patent search of either its own portfolio or of any other organization.

• "Attention is called to the possibility that implementation of this standard may require use of subject matter covered by patent rights. By publication of this standard, no position is taken with respect to the existence or validity of any patent rights in connection therewith. The IEEE shall not be responsible for identifying patents or patent applications for which a license may be required to implement an IEEE standard or for conducting inquiries into the legal validity or scope of those patents that are brought to its attention."

• "A patent holder or patent applicant has filed a statement of assurance that it will grant licenses under these rights without compensation or under reasonable rates and nondiscriminatory, reasonable terms and conditions to applicants desiring to obtain such licenses. The IEEE makes no representation as to the reasonableness of rates, terms, and conditions of the license agreements offered by patent holders or patent applicants. Further information may be obtained from the IEEE Standards Department."

In regards to the presentation of information to a standards developmentgroup, PatCom has decided the following:

1. After a patent letter of assurance (LoA) has been accepted by PatCom, it


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

is allowable for a presenter to state that an LoA has been filed by aPatent Holder, accepted by PatCom, and listed in the online listing of LoAsat http://standards.ieee.org/db/patents/index.html

Anyone seeking a copy of the accepted LoA should contact the PatCom Administrator.2. Discussion of the content of accepted, submitted, or proposed LoAs is prohibited.3. Discussion of licensing terms and conditions is prohibited.

*7Jan05 Email from David Ringle regarding message from Ray Hapeman, PatCom Chair

DS-UWB Merger #2 Proposal IPR Status• The companies that have contributed to the DS-UWB proposal have filed the necessary

LOAs with the IEEE-SA. • The coding techniques used by the DS-UWB proposal are similar to those used in other

IEEE 802 standards or have been available to the public for many years. • No company has been identified as having essential patent claims against the current DS-

UWB proposal that has refused to license those patents if the DS-UWB proposal is included in the 802.15.3a standard.

• Statements regarding possible patents on merge proposal #2 have not resulted in any validated patent claims against merger proposal #2.

Questions and answers were:

Matt Shoemake asked about slide 14 bullet 3 on the DS-UWB Merger #2 Proposal IPR Status. He said that did not make sense. Karen agreed with Matt and told John that the word “identified” should be changed to “come forward”

Matt asked John if Motorola claimed any essential patents. John said Motorola will license any necessary per IEEE requirements.

The session recessed at 12:35 PM

Session 2

The task group (TG) chairman, Bob Heile, called the session to order at 1:30 PM

The chair stated that we would concentrate this afternoons work on the responses to the no vote comments.

The first presentation of the day was given by Matt Welborn on DS-UWB Responses to TG3aVoter NO Comments document 15-05-0050-02-003a.

Highlights from the presentation are: Comment summary


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

o 26 unique sets of No comments submittedo Representative comments are presented here witho comment resolution detailso MAC supporto DS-UWB performanceo OOB emissions and regulatory complianceo Complexityo Proposal summary

Is there a need for additional requirements above 031r9 to work with 15.3 MAC as the commenter claims?

o Most modes in the 15.3 MAC do not require CCA: CTA, MCTAo The CAP requires CCAo For most situations, a device will need to monitor the channel during all ofo CAP in order to participate, therefore the CCA requirement in 03/031r9 is

adequate to ensure good CAP performanceo The commenter's concern seems to be for some pathological case (during

CAP) where the beginning-of-preamble-only CCA causes a degradation in piconet performance, such as a packet collision due to a previously undetected collision earlier in the same CAP

o Our conclusion is that this case is of very low probability and therefore not required to support the MAC beyond the requirements in 03/031r9

Performance at High Rates (1+ Gbps)o Assertions of commenters:

Uncompressed video links require lower PER than other forms of data High rate video or other applications should not be addressed in TG3a

We do not agree with these assertions Packet losses typically leads to retransmission, not to data loss UWB applications requiring 1 Gbps identified in multiple

documentso Initially identified in a SG3a CFA presentation by Chuck Brabenac of Intel

(document 02/139r0) – up to 1000 Mbps desired data BWo Also identified in CFA response from Sony (02/043r0) - “Non-encoded Video (>1

Gbps)” & high speed file transfer in <10 secondso CFA response from TI (M. Duval, “High Rate WPAN for Video”, 02/047r0)

indentifies 3D computer game apps. using XGA & SXGAo The TG3a Requirements Document also clearly indicates UWB applications that

require up to 1 Gbps (document 03/030r0).o In addition, the “Download Application” section of 03/030r0 states:o “These are minimum download rates for an initial implementation.


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

o Consumer desire is always that faster downloads are better and thus significant importance is attached to the ability of the proposed technology to significantly increase download rates in the future.”

Performance at High Rates (1 Gbps)o DS-UWB has multiple modes (with FEC) supporting 1+ Gbps (2 bands)o Simulations in different AWGN and multipath channel conditionso This is the only proposal considered by TG3a that has demonstrated the capability

to satisfy this 1 Gbps requirement from the SG3a CFAs & TG3a Requirements Document

DS-UWB Performanceo Comment:

If the DS-UWB camp could provide a convincing proof of its ability to provide a robust NLOS 110Mbps link operating over 10m within the FCC part15f emissions limits, without the aid of directional antennas, I would consider changing my no vote to a yes. At this stage of the game, after several iterations of DS-UWB silicon, it should be possible to provide this as a practical demonstration. Although IEEE rules may not permit this as part of a formal session, the DS-UWB proponents' history of providing interference "demonstrations" leads me to believe that the logistics could be managed, if the technology were there.

o Response: The Selection Criteria do not require a proposal to be fully demonstrated in

silicon before selection of the baseline draft. Numerous simulation results have been presented to the TG that were performed according to the procedures described in the Selection Criteria.

Nevertheless, multiple public demonstrations have been made of integrated devices that have been certified by the FCC under Part 15f emission limits and that show robust performance in multipath channels.

DS-UWB Performanceo Comments:

The equalizer will have error propagation and there will be error floor in performance I would need to see simulation results, architectures, and have a comfortable feeling regarding merge proposal #2s capabilities to scale in data rate and range, as described in the 802.15.3a selection criteria. Then: Unfortunately the no vote response presentation did not provide ample detail to resolve my concerns; I hope to see simulation results, architectures, etc…

DS-UWB Performanceo Comments resolved:


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

System-level simulations (see 04/483r3 for detailed results and specific architectural parameters) demonstrate equalizer performance in end-to-end impaired simulations See detailed discussion of equalizer effects in document 04/504r1, slides 2-11

Error floors were shown in simulations performed by the authors of Merged proposal #1 in their simulations of MBOK (04/449r0), but their implementation was sub-optimal and only included an equalizer for MB-OFDM, not for MBOK

Our simulations show that although error propagation is present, it does not significantly reduce the range achieved by DS-UWB

Out-of-band Emissionso I would like you to quantify the impact on the DS-UWB system of having to meet

strict out of band emissions requirements for services such as IMT-2000 etc. corresponding to proposed protection levels being discussed in ITU-R, etc.

o Lack of an effective mechanism to solve out-of-band and in-band interference for incumbent and future radio service operators is a serious disadvantage with the DS-UWB technology. MBOA has proposed MB-OFDM as a solution to meet both performance and interference mitigation; at present, it is the only one UWB technology that provides a mechanism to coexist with other radio services. As being discussed at ITU-R, CEPT and other regulatory meetings, UWB interference is a global issue, and industry needs a standard solution that meets both performance and interference mitigation. Techniques proposed from DS-UWB in the past either accompany an excessive performance drop or lack technical feasibility. Without an effective technical remedy for DS-UWB, it is extremely difficult to reconsider my NO vote.

Example Mask Proposed by ETSI to ITUo Note that the US is not supporting this indoor limit proposed by ETSIo USA has proposed that ITU use the FCC’s mask

DS-UWB Out-of-band Emissionso Natural pulse shape of RRC rolls-off quickly outside operating bando Further control of emissions for co-located applications is possible

OOB Emissions: Measurement From FCC Certification Test Document Current DS-UWB WDK Spectrum Easily Meets FCC Spectral Emission Limits

o DS-UWB built for integration into cell-phones and GPSo Out of Band Emissions in GPS & cell phone bands are 30+ dB better than required

Current DS-UWB WDK Spectrum Easily Meets FCC Spectral Emission Limits DS-UWB built for integration into cell-phones and GPS

o Out of Band Emissions in GPS & cell phone bands are 30+ dB better than required OOB Emissions: Measurements of MB-OFDM


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

o Commenter indicates that only MB-OFDM can meet OOB emission levels required to coexist with other systems

o Publicly released measurements do not support this conclusion

“Spectral Flexibility”o The DS-SS system proposed does not meet the easy frequency adaptability

(adaptable emissions mask) that will be necessary for a world wide deployment of a single implementation. Specifically, the current direct of the development of European and Japanese UWB regulations is to provide greater protection to some services (frequency bands) within the UWB operating band. While I understand that steps can be taken to notch out frequencies from the transmitted signal, I believe that the added complexity will increase cost so as to limit this UWB approach to high end products.

Same Spectral Flexibility as OFDMo Comment:

I still consider the spectral flexibility of OFDM is essential for a worldwide standard that may have to accommodate spectral mask cutouts in different regulatory regimes than the US. I would change my no vote to a yes if DS-UWB could demonstrate the same level of spectral flexibility as provided by an OFDM approach in a cost-effective and practical manner. This would preferably be by means of a real-time demo, showing on a spectrum analyzer how notches can be created an moved to the desired locations.

World-wide Compliance Topico Fully Resolved

The only regulations that exist in the world are those of the FCC The Freescale implementation of the DS-UWB proposal has already been

certified by the FCC (No Waiver Required!) Therefore, the DS-UWB proposal is proven to be world-wide compliant Neither the PAR nor the Criteria Document requires the proposal to be

compliant with non-existing regulations A device cannot be non-compliant or compliant with a document that does not exist January 2005 Welborn, Freescale Slide 29 doc.: IEEE 802.15-05/0050r2 Submission

o Future World-Wide Regulations Are Easier To Get With DS-UWB • The key requirement to obtain world-

wide regulations is to minimize the potential for interference It was difficult to get simple FCC regulations even with all UWB parties

working together Both proposers have made presentations that show DS-UWB is less

interfering than MB-OFDM As a result, it will be easier to get world-wide regulations passed for DS-

UWB Objectors to UWB will only accept the lowest interfering form of UWB i.e. DS-UWB January 2005 Welborn, Freescale Slide 30 doc.: IEEE 802.15-05/0050r2 Submission


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

There Are Good Reasons For World Wide Regulatory Efforts To Avoid Notchingo There is an extensive technical record justifying the FCC’s regulationso Many applications fail if spectral notching is required especially safety of life and

industrial, such as UWB imaging & rangingo Communications systems are both degraded and made more expensive by notchingo For these reasons, the US position in international regulatory bodies is the FCC’s

rules January 2005 Welborn, Freescale Slide 31 doc.: IEEE 802.15-05/0050r2 Submission

World Wide Efforts are Coalescing Around the FCC Rules & No Notcheso Other nations are working hard to have a global standard largely based on the FCC

rules Example is the ETSI proposal to the ITU No notching is required Recent reports by OFCOM (UK) and EU indicate that mask based on FCC in-band limits is desirable

o None are considering dynamic notching as a requirement for UWB operationo The desired regulatory outcome is a global standard that would preclude the need

for special modes for different regions January 2005 Welborn, Freescale Slide 32 doc.: IEEE 802.15-05/0050r2 Submission

Even If Notching Were Ever Required DS-UWB Has Simple Spectral Control Capabilities

o DS-UWB has multiple powerful techniques to control its spectrumo Any mechanism, static or dynamic, that modifies the pulse shape or code, can be

used Small, low-cost filters are already used for front-end protectiono These also control the emitted spectrum The low-pass RRC filter illustrated in doc

153o This filter operates with a bandwidth of ½ the PRF (~700 MHz)o A dynamically controlled 700 MHz BW notch filter could be built.18u CMOS is

completely adequate Even off the shelf op-amps that have to drive external pins can do this

o Analog linear pulse combination – e.g., in document 03/111r0 DAC based designs - Digital pulse shaping techniques January 2005 Welborn, Freescale Slide 33 doc.: IEEE 802.15-05/0050r2 Submission

Even If Notching Were Ever Required DS-UWB Is Simpler Than MB-OFDMo No detailed results showing feasibility of MB-OFDM notching haveever been

presented to TG3a Research indicates issues with spectral ripples induced by nulling tones

o No MAC/Protocol changes are required The notched spectrum can be used without Tx-Rx negotiation protocols Spectral control based on pulse shape does not require changing the preamble sequence as does MB-OFDM

o The DS-UWB receiver is backward compatible It is insensitive to the transmitted pulse shape Only the chipping rates and center frequencies need to match The exact frequency of a narrow notch has little effect The exact frequency for the edge of the pass-band has little effect While power loss cannot be compensated,


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

the existing equalizer will mitigate the ISI January 2005 Welborn, Freescale Slide 34 doc.: IEEE 802.15-05/0050r2 Submission ICI due to Pulse Shaping

o Comments Any attempt to change the spectrum will generate ISI which will make the

equalizer problem even worse Spectral shaping of DSSS introduces ICI and rapidly degrades performance This pulse shaping will also severely degrade the performance

o Response: Pulse shaping lengthens the pulse only marginally A well-designed

receiver is already designed to tolerate channel dispersion of 50+ ns and is relatively insensitive to pulse shape – the notch looks like part of the channel Conclusion: Pulse shaping does not cause unmanageable ICI or ISI

ADC Complexityo Comment:

The ADC speed and amplifier quality seem to dictate implementation in an exotic process, which in my humble opinion would place a significant damper on adoption. Selecting a standard with significant adoption hurdles will encourage fragmentation of the medium, as lower-cost, higher performance technologies pass by the standard.

o Resolution: ADCs at speeds and quality requires for DS-UWBare already

available in commercial products

ADC Power Requirements & Scalingo ADC complexity is a function of both sample rate and bit widtho Concerns of comments seem to be that ADC requirements are much higher for

DS-UWB than for alternative approaches (e.g. MB-OFDM) because clock rate is higher

o ADC power consumption is roughly proportional to clock rate and also scales exponentially with the bit width 2x clock speed = 2x power consumption 1 bit increase in sample width = 2x power increase

o This agrees with ADC scaling estimates based on MB-OFDM proposed methodology Available in IEEE Document 03/343r1 describing MB-OFDM complexity and power consumption

o DS-UWB digital receiver architecture can use a fixed bit width for all data rates up to 1.326 Gbps

o MB-OFDM proposes to use 4-5 bits at 528 MHz January 2005 Welborn, Freescale Slide 39 doc.: IEEE 802.15-05/0050r2 Submission ADC Relative Complexity & Bounds

o Relative complexity (power) 528 MHz @ 4 bits » 0.8x 1326 MHz @ 3 bits 528 MHz @ 5 bits » 1.6x 1326 MHz @ 3 bits


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

o Both approaches can likely scale to lower resolution ADCs with some sacrifice in performance

o ADCs are already commercially available to exceed the requirements needed for DS-WB implementations January 2005 Welborn, Freescale Slide 40 doc.: IEEE 802.15-05/0050r2 Submission DS-UWB Performance at High Rates

o Comment: “MB-OFDM has disclosed detailed information on the preamble structure

for the channel estimation including the bit sequence, but DS-UWB has kept that information under secrecy. This has lead to a general conclusion that DS-UWB data does not reflect an actual implementation. As long as its performance is not validated on a fair and neutral ground, I would not reconsider my NO vote. “

“Regarding the preamble, it has stayed unchanged since it had been proposed in 2003 (03-334r5) as you also mentioned. Then, please give us the following specific information:

(1) How many bits are used in the preamble? (2) How many bits are used for AGC and Timing Acquisition

(counted from the first bit)? (3) How may bits are used for Channel Estimation (following AGC

and TA)? Without these information, I will not be able to verify your DS-UWB

results. January 2005 Welborn, Freescale Slide 41 doc.: IEEE 802.15-05/0050r2 Submission

Preamble Structureo Preamble functions:o Robust acquisition, both for isolated networks and in the presence of multi-user

interference Relatively “white” spectral properties Accurate configuration of receiver for proper training and reception of

packets Flexible acquisition time to match channel conditions and throughput

requirementso DS-UWB preamble defined to date has used a PN sequence followed by

embedded SFD marker followed by an equalizer training sequenceo Provision is now added for a rotating seed for the PN sequence to whiten across

subsequent frames (based on document 03/121r1, Sam Mo, Panasonic)o Specific breakdown of preamble functions is up to the implementer, but one

suggested approach is described below January 2005 Welborn, Freescale Slide 42 doc.: IEEE 802.15-05/0050r2 Submission DS-UWB Preamble Structure

o The DS-UWB preamble contains a PN acquisition sequence, an SFD marker and data field and a variable-length PN equalizer training sequence:

Acquisition sequence: sent using length-24 PAC. Approximately 9 ms long, modulated using a PN sequence from length 17 LFSR with rotating


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

seed (initial seed is same as last state of previous preamble transmission). Used to perform coarse acquisition, timing recovery and rake training.

Start frame delimiter (SFD): A specific 32-bit sequence chosen to have large hamming distance from any 32-bit portion of acquisition PN sequence. Always the same for every packet. Used to establish timing for frame. Modulated with PAC.

Training data field: 8-bit data field (bit-wise triplicated, modulated with PAC). Contains fields for passing training/payload code length (i.e. L=24/12/6/3/2 or 1), length of training sequence, and BPSK/4-BOK option (see next page)

Training sequence: Continuation of acquisition PN sequence, but modulated with payload code. Used to perform fine AGC and train equalizer. Approximately 5 ms in length (default) – can be made longer for severe channels or to length zero if equalizer does’t need to be re-trained

PAR Deficiencyo Comment:

The TG3a PAR evidently does not require a cognitive radio. I believe this was shortsighted on the part of P802.15.

o Response: As the commenter states, the PAR does not require cognitive radio (CR)

capabilities Neither CFA responses nor the TG3a requirements nor theselection criteria

even mention CR capabilities There are no UWB regulations anywhere that use CR

Getting even simple UWB regulations has proven to be the mostcontentious proceedings in history for regulatory agencies

This fact argues that attempting to get cognitive UWB regulations in place is highly unlikely

DS-UWB Manufacturabilityo Comment: It is very difficult to generate parts/chips under mass production

process variations (voltage, temperature) for wide band signals for the DS-UWB proposal. This problem will reduce yield, increase cost, degrade performance and again adversely effect UWB products, consumer and the UWB market.

Manufacturability of DS is Proveno Comment asserts a “can’t be manufacturable” argumento The assertion is conjecture

No hard fact justification as to why the commenter presumes DS-UWB is too hard to build

The assertion is false – by existence proof Clever engineers have already built low-cost mass-production chips with

high yield that do operate over temperature and voltage variations


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

The hard facts are that chips already exist that demonstrate circuits that hold the output PSD to within +/- .5 dB of an absolute reference across all temperature and voltage combinations without any trimming

In fact, there are multiple existence proofs Chips have been developed by multiple groups, Freescale, Artimi,

and others SNR, Aliasing, OOB Interference, And Filter Manufacturability

o No Comment: “Considering that suggested ADC resolution is 3-bits, and considering that

the sequence length for 110 Mbps is only 6 chips, and that 5 of these chips have zero energy, the interference rejection properties of the ADC and baseband look inherently poor. For example, it would be easy for a NB interferer to completely capture the 3-bit ADCs.

Also, since there is no over-sampling proposed, it is easy for strong OOB signals to aliased into the 1.3 GHz wide passband. The degree of analog filtering necessary to protect such a system from alias bands has not been discussed. I would consider changing my no-vote to a yes, if the authors of merged proposal #2 could show their analysis of the order of filters required at baseband and at RF to achieve a 1m separation requirement from other unlicensed services in the UNII and ISM bands. Once the required filter orders have been established, we need to be convinced that such filters can be built on-chip with the required intrinsic bandwidth (1.3 GHz).

In the case were analog correlators are not used, the need for explicit baseband channel-select filters is paramount. In previous/existing highly analog implementations of DS-UWB, it may have been that analog correlators provided some intrinsic selectivity of their own, prior to the ADC. This benefit will be removed once a DSP based approach with chip-rate sampling is introduced. The product implications of these wideband, high dynamic range filtering requirements need to be carefully considered. I guess this is one of the down-sides of proposing a solution “based on true Ultra-Wideband principles” as claimed by the authors of 140r10.

I would consider changing my no vote to a yes, if it could be shown that the required on-chip filtering can be integrated with low die area in a mass-market, low cost, process.”

DS and MB-OFDM Filters Remove OOB Interferenceo OOB energy must be removed so LNA is linear for all radio typeso Once the LNA is linear, SNR is keyo Pros and Cons of On-chip versus Off-chip RF filtering is a design choice that has

similar trade-offs for either proposalo Manufacturers are free to choose based on the target market requirements

SNR Depends On Bit Energy Not How Many Zeros Are In A Code


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

o The energy per bit is the same regardless of whether it is communicated via one wavelet (chip, impulse) or N wavelets.

The SNR is the same regardless of N. The receiver either receives a one loud single wavelet, or integrates a N

smaller wavelets to result in a signal equally loud.o At 110 Mbps and 12-chip sparse code, the sign bit from the ADC is the data

Even three bits are not absolutely requiredo The additional bits are useful for

Equalizer (DFE-decision feedback equalizer, or linear) Soft FEC decoding

o The additional bits and samples are useful for Rake NBIR (narrow band interference removal) processing

o With sparse codes and a 1.3 GHz ADC the code processor (i.e. code integrator) can be turned off to save power

o High performance chip can do Rake, DFE, Soft-FEC + NBIR

o Low performance ultra low cost can be done with 1-bit ADC and nothing else

DS-UWB Has Less Aliasing Proposal Summary

o A review of the history of the Merger#2 proposalo A clear summary presentation of the DS-UWB proposalo Consistent & complete performance and complexity results

Conclusionso DS-UWB is based on true Ultra-wideband principles

Large fractional bandwidth signals in two different bands Benefits from low fading due to wide bandwidth (>1.5 GHz)

o An excellent combination of high performance and low complexity for WPAN applications

Support scalability to ultra-low power operation for short range (1-2 m) very high rates using low-complexity or no coding

o Performance exceeds the Selection Criteria in all aspecto Better performance and lower power than any other

proposal considered by TG3ao We request your support in the second confirmation vote scheduled for

Wednesday, Jan 19, at 10:30 am

Questions



January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

Session 3

The TG chairman, Bob Heile, called the session to order at 4:00 PM

Questions and answers on the response to No Vote comments document # 15-05-0050-02-003a were:

Slide 4 referring to response that CCA is not important. However, in July 2003 proposal XSI proposed the multi-piconets and stated importance of CCA.

Preamble code now using a rotating seed. Notching the spectrum. If we have to notch where is the most likely frequency? FCC

did a good job. Especially the part 15. Multiple radios within the same box may cause us to notch.

Global regulations. In band WW regulations might follow FCC. EC requirements are not clear at this point and a flat mask will be very difficult. Slide 66 – Power consumption – what is the difference between Freescale’s released

data and what is shown here? Process, implementation, and integration. Multipath problems and want to see ROC curves. Preamble detection based on one

specific case was presented in Sept. 2003. Would like see curves that work. Slide 7 – wireless office – did not specify that 1Gbps was really necessary. Power consumption slide based on 3-bit implementation. DS-UWB and IMT2000 – Nokia and Microsoft are worried about OOB. In band interference is important for many applications. Slide 49 – Real filters on real boards – selectivity – pre-select filter- after down

conversion, LPF Preamble and the change to whiten it. Slide 18 to normalize would have been a more fair comparison. Interference from DS-UWB devices, transmitter implementation. Slide 47 – Sparce codes? Characterize the system with pulse, code and data. Slide 49 attenuation at 4.9 GHz could be a problem in Japan Radio LAN - additional

filter could be implemented. This could cause loss of transmit power. Actual numbers were asked for and response was it was based on real numbers, but no numbers were given.

Pulse shaped to create a notch – 2 tap delay line Slide 66 Power Consumption - gate counts and real power measurements Support for multiple Piconets. What if they are right next to each other? Slide 45 – clarification on last bullet. Are these solutions really like what has been

presented? Answer was it was not known.

Chair announced that in our email que is a document on UWB confidentiality. He wants all to review and make comments.The second confirmation vote will be at 10:30 AM Wednesday morning


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2


WEDNESDAY, 19 JANUARY 2005

Session 4

The TG chairman, Bob Heile, called the session to order at 10:30 AM

The chair said that the special order of the day of the confirmation vote is to start immediately. Vote is a “Y” for Yes and “N” for No. Yes or No can be spelled out. Order of anonymous voting was in reverse alphabetical order.

Voting was completed and the results would be given in the afternoon session.

The session recessed at 10:47 AM

Session 5


Result of the confirmation vote from this morning was82 Yes - 53.9%70 No - 46.1%

The first presentation of the day was given by Mathew Shoemake on MultiBand OFDM OverviewDocument # 15-05-0081-00-003a

Highlights on the presentation were: The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of MultiBand OFDM (doc. 15-

04-0493r1) including- Technical advantages and characteristics- Identification of key supporters- References to supporting material

The MultiBand OFDM proposal:- Is based on proven OFDM technology

Used in IEEE 802.11a and 802.11g- Achieves data rates of 53 to 480 Mbps- Support for 4 to 16 simultaneous piconets - Spectrum easily sculpted for international regulatory domain compliance


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

- Is easily extensible for future range/rate improvements PLCP Preamble

- Deterministic sequence- Allows packet detect and piconet identification

PLCP Header- Encoded at 53 Mbps- Contains reserved bits for future extensions

Payload- Coded at 53 to 480 Mbps

Each frame contains multiple OFDM symbols Each OFDM symbol is 312.5 ns long containing:

- 60.6 ns null cyclic prefix- 242.4 ns of data transmission- 9.5 ns guard

Number of OFDM Symbols:- Packet sync: 21- Frame sync: 3- Channel estimation: 6- PLCP header: 12- Payload: Variable

As characteristic of OFDM systems, signal rolloff is sharp yielding excellent adjacent channel interference characteristics

Spectrum is divided into 14 bands Bands are spaced at 528 MHz Five band groups are defined Enables structured expansion Each Time Frequency Code (TFC) corresponds to a Logic Channel Logical Channels enable Simultaneously Operating Piconets (SOPS) Four SOPS are enabled on Band Group1

AWGN Performance

Regulatory- Meets FCC requirement for 500 MHz minimum bandwidth- Maximally flexible for regulatory expansion due spectral sculpting capability

Robustness- Time Frequency Coding provides frequency diversity gain and robustness to

interference

The distance at which the Multi-band OFDM system can achieve a PER of 8% for a 90% link success probability is tabulated below:


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

Range AWGNLOS: 0 – 4 mCM1

NLOS: 0 – 4 mCM2

NLOS: 4 – 10 mCM3

RMS Delay Spread: 25 nsCM4

110 Mbps 21.4 m 12.0 m 11.4 m 12.3 m 11.3 m

200 Mbps 14.6 m 7.4 m 7.1 m 7.5 m 6.6 m

480 Mbps 9.3 m 3.2 m 3.0 m N/A N/A

Includes losses due to front-end filtering, clipping at the DAC, ADC degradation, multi-path degradation, channel estimation, carrier tracking, packet acquisition, no attenuation on the guard tones, etc.

PHY-SAP Throughput see table slide 12 document #15-05-0081-00-003a

MultiBand OFDM has an unprecedented level of support and serves the needs of: Major Personal Computer manufacturers Major Mobile Phone manufacturers Major Consumer Electronics manufacturers Major Software companies Component manufacturers Test equipment manufacturers Summary

o Inherent Multipath Capture and Immunityo High Performance Error Controlo Range/rate extendableo Spectral Sculpting for Global Expandabilityo Superior channelizationo Low Cost and Power Consumption

Questions and answers were on the following topics:

Supporting 16 piconets – range performance – looking at path loss you can simulate it. Range performance depends on the path loss of the center frequency.

Modulation – one of the disadvantages in time domain the peak to average power is very large. In the linear amp the peaks are cut off – what does that do to bit error rate? Have to look at what happens at transmitter and receivers – on transmit the difference at the A/D converters is small at the receiver the peak to average is not a problem as shown with other current 802 solutions.

Parallelism which transmits the interference or measures taken to keep individual tones fading.? Coded OFDM and simulations show that it follows very well. ISI is a problem and there is no real difference in multi-carrier vs. single carrier.

Peak to Average – Is it the same between DS-UWB and OFDM?


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

Higher rates using standard approaches. FCC statement – slide 10 – vs. MBOA waiver – Waiver request does not imply that

MBOA does not meet FCC rules. The waiver is only to get direct information on transmit power and the ambiguity.

o There are a lot of questions raised to the FCC and the waiver is only trying to clarify the question raised.

Issues around the waiver – would you go to market without the waiver? Many manufacturers are planning on going to market using OFDM.

Scaling data rate – going beyond 480Mbps – advanced coding, using more bandwidth, and many others. Walk before running.

Overlapping coverage between adjacent tones – cohency between tones – All simulations were done to evaluate these adjacent channels in simulations and all are asynchronous.

500 MHz minimum bandwidth. If you need to turn off bands that make the 500 MHz not compliant will you just turn off the entire band. The question mixes non-existent European rules with current FCC rules. Currently FCC changed the ruling for Bluetooth to not force them to abide by the 500 MHz minimum bandwidth.

Second report and order reaffirmed the 500 MHz minimum bandwidth. The ability to sculpt tones is a perfect solution. Europe is not requiring the 500 MHz bandwidth.

FCC waiver – ranges where the radio goes 10 meters. If the waiver does not go through will you still be able to make the 10 meters. We need to wait on the FCC waiver answer. The fading is not 6db. Data on the guard tones helped reduce the fading.

The second presentation of the day was given by Matt Welborn on DS-UWB Proposal Update Document # 15-04-0140-11-003a.

Highlights on the presentation were: Merger #2 Proposal & Performance Overview Scalability A commitment to compromise for TG3a

Key Features of DS-UWB– Based on true Ultra-wideband principles

Large fractional bandwidth signals in two different bands Benefits from low fading due to wide bandwidth (>1.5 GHz)

– An excellent combination of high performance and low complexity for WPAN applications

Support scalability to ultra-low power operation for short range (1-2 m) very high rates using low-complexity or no coding

Performance exceeds the Selection Criteria in all aspect Better performance and lower power than any other proposal considered by TG3a

Each piconet operates in one of two bands Low band (below U-NII, 3.1 to 4.9 GHz) – Required to implement High band (optional, above U-NII, 6.2 to 9.7 GHz) – Optional

– Different “personalities”: propagation & bandwidth


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

– Both have ~ 50% fractional bandwidth Each piconet operates in one of two bands

– Each band supports up to 6 different Piconets– Piconet separation through low cross-correlation signals

Piconet chip rates are offset by ~1% (13 MHz) for each piconet Piconets use different code word sets

Scalabilityo Baseline devices support 110-200+ Mbps operation

MB-OFDM deviceo Reasonable performance in CM1-CM4 channelso Complexity/power consumption as reported by MB-OFDM team

DS-UWB deviceo Equal or better performance than MB-OFDM in essentially everycaseo Lower complexity than MB-OFDM receiver

What about:o Scalability to higher data rate applicationso Scalability to low power applicationso Scalability to different multipath conditionso Scalability to higher frequency bands

High Data Rate Applicationso Critical for cable replacement applications such as wireless USB (480 Mbps) and

IEEE 1394 (400 Mbps)o High rate device supporting 480+ Mbps

DS-UWB device uses shorter codes (L=2, symbol rate 660 MHz) Uses same ADC rate & bit width (3 bits) and rake tap bit widths Rake: use fewer taps at a higher rate or same taps with extra gates Viterbi decoder complexity is ~2x the baseline k=6 decoder Can operate at 660 Mbps without Viterbi decoder for super low

power Current proposal scales to 1 Gbps in low band, 2 Gbps in high band

MB-OFDM device 5-bit ADCs required for operation at 480 Mbps Increased internal (e.g. FFT, MRC, etc) processing bit widths Viterbi decoder complexity is ~2x the baseline k=7 decoder (twice

the complexity of k=6 decoder, 8 times the complexity of k=4 decoder)

Increased power consumption for ALL modes (55, 110, 200, etc.) results when ADC/FFT bit width is increased

Low Power Applicationso Critical for handheld (battery operated) devices that need high rates

Streaming or file transfer applications: memory, media players, etc.


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

Goal is lowest power consumption and highest possible data rates in order to minimize session times for file transfers

o Proposal support for scaling to lower power applications DS-UWB device

Has very simple transmitter implementation, no DAC or IFFT required

Receiver can gracefully trade-off performance for lower complexity Can operate at 660 Mbps without Viterbi decoder for super low

power Also can scale to data rates of 1000+ Mbps using L=1 (pure BPSK)

or 4-BOK with L=2 at correspondingly shorter ranges (~2 meters) MB-OFDM device

Device supporting 480 Mbps has higher complexity & power consumption

MB-OFDM can reduce ADC to 3 bits with corresponding performance loss

It is not clear how to scale MB-OFDM to >480 Mbps without resorting to higher-order modulation such as 16-QAM or 16-PSK

Would result in significant loss in modulation efficiency and complexity increase

Scalability to Varying Multipath Conditionso Critical for handheld (battery operated) devices

Support operation in severe channel conditions, but also… Ability to use less processing (& battery power) in less severe

environments Multipath conditions determine the processing required for acceptable

performance Collection of time-dispersed signal energy (using either FFT or rake

processing) Forward error correction decoding & Signal equalization Poor: receiver always operates using worst-case assumptions for multipath Performs far more processing than necessary when conditions are less

severe Likely unable to provide low-power operation at high data rates (500-

1000+ Mbps) DS-UWB device

o Energy capture (rake) and equalization are performed at symbol rate

o Processing in receiver can be scaled to match existing multipath conditions

MB-OFDM deviceo Always requires full FFT computation – regardless of

multipath conditions


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

o Channel fading has Rayleigh distribution – even in very short channels

o CP length is chosen at design time, fixed at 60 ns, regardless of actual multipath

Scalability to Other Portions of UWB Bandso Each piconet operates in one of two bands

Low band (below U-NII, 3.1 to 4.9 GHz) – Mandatory High band (optional, above U-NII, 6.2 to 9.7 GHz) – Optional

Different “personalities”: propagation & bandwidth Both have ~ 50% fractional bandwidth

o DS-UWB Center frequency is twice as high => lose 6dB. 2 x Bandwidth => 2 x Total power => gain 3dB Expect overall loss of 3dB w.r.t. low band in AWGN. 3dB loss equates to a distance loss factor of √2. AWGN distance for 220Mbps in low band is 16.5m => 11.7m AWGN in high band. Although there is a loss of 3dB in AWGN, the loss turns out to be less in

multipath because of the greater frequency diversity (see backup slides or 04/483 for details)

o MB-OFDM No specific simulations or even estimates of performance in higher bands Does not scale to wider bandwidths, this would cause even greater “burst”

interference effects using the “TFC” approach DS-UWB: The Best Solution

o We have presented a proposal superior to any others considered by TG3ao Lower complexityo Higher performance

Satisfies all applications requirements to 1+ Gbps Scalable to other application spaces and regulatory requirements

o Multi-Gbps for uncompressed video/transfer applicationso Low rate/low complexity applications – many DS-type approaches are under

consideration by TG4ao Compliant with all established regulations & proposed regulationso Lowest interference effects for other systemso OOB emissions well below any proposed limitso Capability to support other regulatory restrictions

Compromise: No other Optionso We have made significant improvements to the DS-UWB proposal over the last

two years to address voter concernso Multiple mergerso Significant improvements in March 2004 based on comments of

Merger #1 (MB-OFDM) authors


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

o Multiple cycles of resolving “No” commentso Nevertheless, a number of voters have not voted to confirm this proposalo However, 54% approval was achieved on the last confirmation vote

Given this, the prospects for Merger#1 proposal to be selected as the sole technology in the TG3a baseline draft are very low

Previous Compromise Effortso The DS-UWB authors & supporters have proposed multiple approaches to achieve

a compromise standard for TG3a Two optional independent PHYs in one standard Two optional PHYs with a common signaling mode to coordinate &

interoperate A singly PHY with a required (TBD) base mode and two high rates modes

o In the past, all compromise proposal have been rejected by the authors of Merged Proposal #1 Little meaningful feedback, no counter-proposals offered Only response is “Customers have indicated preference for a single PHY

standard” (04/0641r1)o This position defies the reality that there will be multiple forms of UWB

technology in the marketplaceo This position will not lead to any path forward for TG3a

A Commitment to Compromiseo The DS-UWB authors are committed to working for compromise between the two

differing approaches under consideration We will consider all reasonable proposals for compromise submitted by

any TG3a voters Examples of unreasonable compromise suggestions:

“Drop all DS-UWB and use only MB-OFDM,” or “MB-OFDM is mandatory, DS-UWB is optional” We urge all TG3a voters to hold both proposal teams accountable

to active and meaningful participation in compromise discussions and/or activities

Future Compromise Activitieso Possible compromise activities to pursue closure

Extended compromise discussions this week – ~4 hours of agenda time available during “Technical Contributions” period

Teleconferences between meetings Accountability options?

o “Expiration date”: Select 2-option approach if no better approach is developed by a specific

date, or More drastic: terminate PAR if no compromise found

o Other penalties for “non-participation” A Framework for Compromise


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

o A Base Mode common to all 15.3a deviceso Negligible impact on native MB-OFDM or DSUWB piconet performanceo Negligible complexity increase over baseline MBOFDM-only or DS-UWB-only

implementationso Advantages

Moving the TG3a process to completion Mechanism to avoid inter-PHY interference when these high rate UWB

PHYs exist in the marketplace Potential for interoperation at higher data rates

Conclusions: DS-UWBo DS-UWB has superior performance in all multipath conditionso Scalability to ultra-high data rates of 1+ Gbpso High performance / low complexity implementation supports all WPAN

applications Mobile and handheld device applications WPAN & multimedia applications

o Full & committed support for compromise efforts to reach consensus for a baseline draft

Questions and answers were on the following topics:

Compromise before down selection? Either is OK. Slide 15 Noise figure? Is it likely? There was a slight increase. Slightly less than sq. rt. of

2 Disadvantages of doubling bandwidth? Technology dependent. Penalties – antenna

aperture, front end, noise High Data Rate K=4 state code going to where? - how far away from Shannon limit?

Answer was power of other proposal comparison. Data rate=1 Gbps; FEC= ¾; Code length=1; Symbol Rate 1320 MHz – key difference is Raleigh fading

Anyone built merged proposal 2? Yes. Do you expect the FCC approval done last year is the same as merged proposal #2? Yes. High Rate 90% requirement? There seems to be some type of anomally.


Session 6


The chair said we would consider changing the orders of the day to have a compromise discussion.


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

There was a straw vote with 45 for and 13 against.

The motion was:Following the down selection vote, regardless of the outcome, a merger will occur to combine Merged Proposal #1 (MB-OFDM) and Merger Proposal $2 (DS-UWB), as 2 equal options, and the TG will proceed to a confirmation vote of this combined merged proposal.

Anuj Barati said that this out of order and is a change of the down selection procedure. The chair asked if Anuj as the author of record agrees to this motion. Anuj said “No”. Ian Gifford asked that this be recorded.

Anuj stated that until a proposal gets 75% confirmation it does not belong to the body, but to the individual proposer.

It was agreed to continue the down selection voting.

1= MB-OFDM2= DS-UWB

The result of the vote was:53 for MB-OFDM 44.9 %65 for DS-UWB 55.1 % 0 ABSTAIN

Confirmation vote followed immediately for DS-UWB

Y = YesN = No

The result of the vote was65 Yes 55.6%52 No 44.4%

Chair said that the next item on the agenda is the “going forward” discussion.

Anuj Batra said that there has been many discussions that compromise has been only one sided. He said he had offered John Barr a compromise and John refused, so it not just one sided. One of the ways 802.11 got a compromise was to end the TG if there is no compromise.

Matt Welborn said that yes a consideration to close the TG is a possibility. But, another approach is a forced compromise. Rather than let one person decide not to do that is not correct What the TG could do is change the rules. Thus the author of record should not be the single decision point. Let the TG voters take charge of the process.


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

Anuj Batra said that it is not one person who is making the decision, but a group of authors. In Berlin we took a vote on a merged proposals and it failed. It has been considered and it has been shot down by the membership.

Ian Gifford said we could force merge or split the PAR. The chair has said there has been discussion on splitting the PAR and it would take a lot of work even with the executive committee. Since we have the 802 policy and procedure that deals with uniqueness. There is no IEEE rule that would disallow two technology approaches to the same PAR.

Matt Welborn said he appreciated Anuj’s words and recalls the compromise suggested that said #1 would be required and #2 was optional. He said that there have been several other compromise suggestions. We could set a date that says if there is no better compromise we could have two option phys.

Rick Roberts said he was considering the poison pill approach. The poison pill would not kill all the work we have done, but allow us to make progress by just taking a different approach.

Greg Rasor said that we have been pointing out each others differences rather than pointing out the advantages. There are many regulatory issues. What we need to do is find common ground.

John Barr said the affect of this standard group on the industry has been appalling. Is it possible that some are trying to sabotage the efforts? There are differences and we can not be forced to do only one. If we do both technologies we might find out that they might go in total different markets and enable it by letting the standard happen. He feels the business people are not willing to go forward while we stall things. There are a lot of claims being made that are not true. The IEEE should notice that there is a deadlock. Both going forward equally and let the market decide. If the group really wants to do something now and make something good for our industry, we can. If you want to take your stuff home and kill it, we will stifle the market. The applications for this standard are dramatic and could be beneficial for all. Looking at the 802.15.3 MAC we have a solution that allows multiple phys and could be a big winner. Best thing to do is say how can we stop it now and let the market decide.

Anuj Batra said Thank You John Barr for your words. However, we all want a standard to happen. I have had only 15 days off in the last two years while trying to make this standard happen. We are committed to creating the best standard possible.

Jason Ellis said he was very encouraged with what he had seen at CES with many many companies demonstrations using UWB (MB-OFDM). There is a tremendous amount of interest in having a IEEE standard. In the spirit of compromise, take it off line, have the technical guys work out.

John Barr said there were some incorrect statements made by Jason and that he visited the CES MB-OFDM only once.


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

Ian Gifford said that Stephen Wood was working with some European regulators and not concentrating on working together.

Matthew Shoemake said he has always on the side of letting the body decide the future. He said we should consider any motion that let us get ideas to the floor and have open discussions.

Bill Shvodian said he was in agreement with Matt’s comments on getting ideas on the floor. He also said he could not find any rule in IEEE or 802 that says the body doesn’t own a proposal until 75% confirmation.

Mark Bowles said he pleased that today it is nice to see that we are all trying to look for a compromise. However, what was discussed this week was not working toward compromise. Common ground is not only in the regulatory area.

Francois Chin said 802 has had many disagreements. He said he knows the marketers don’t like to let the market decide, but we need to decide to get this moving.

The chair said the difference between split PAR or dual phys is very little. They have the same merit.

Rick Roberts moved that we adopt the modification in document # 15-04-0532-02-003a

Following would be added to 9.

”In addition, if the down-selection procedure is not complete by the end of the July 2005 session, or within 6 attempts of down-selection (steps 1 through 8) under a restart (as defined below), then TG3a shall advise the WG of its inability to arrive at a baseline draft and shall request that the WG disband the task group. If the WG chooses not to disband TG3a and wishes that TG3a SHALL continue its effort to generate a draft standard, then TG3a shall start anew the whole process of generating a draft standard with a call for proposals, etc.”

Stephen Wood seconded it.

If the working group decides to disband and it doesn’t meet 75% then the WG would restart. Several members had some problems with this wording.Matthew Shoemake made the motion to amend and Stephen Wood seconded

A motion to amend was accepted

Matthew Shoemake, Greg Rasor and Chuck Barabenac proceeded to amend the motion.

The updated motion follows:

“If the down-selection procedure is not complete by the end of the July 2005 session, then the WG chair shall request that the TG3a PAR be withdrawn, unless the WG reverses its position by


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

at least 75% vote. In the event that the WG reverses its position, TG3a shall start anew the whole process of generating a draft standard with a call for proposals.”

The procedure will be to vote on this tomorrow.


THURSDAY, 20 JANUARY 2005

Session 7


The amendment will become a recommendation to the WG.

A point of information – is it a 40 day letter ballot – chair answered yes and vote will be open.

Vote on amendment was:30 For the amendment21 Against the amendment 0 Abstain

The amendment fails

Now back to the original Rick Roberts:

In addition, if the down-selection procedure is not complete by the end of the July 2005 session, or within 6 attempts of down-selection (steps 1 through 8) under a restart (as defined below), then TG3a shall advise the WG of its inability to arrive at a baseline draft and shall request that the WG disband the task group. If the WG chooses not to disband TG3a and wishes that TG3a SHALL continue its effort to generate a draft standard, then TG3a shall start anew the whole process of generating a draft standard with a call for proposals, etc.

Anuj Batra asked if the “July 2005 or 6 attempts” should

The vote on the original ballot:

31 For the motion31 Against the motion1 AbstainThe motion fails.


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

Michael Mc Laughlin ask that the TG ask each side to propose 10 things that they like about each side by the middle of next month.

Matt Welborn said that is a good idea, and suggested a deadline for the TG. Then they would go forward with both proposals as options.

Motion as a change to the down selection:

That TG3a change the down selection procedure to remove the prohibition on “forced-mergers”the effect that if down selection is not complete by the end of the July 2005 meeting, then the TG will create a merger to combine Merger Proposal #1 (MB-OFDM) and Merger Proposal #2 (DS-UWB), as 2 equal options, and that the TG proceed with this merged proposal as the baseline draft standard.

Moved by Matt Welborn and seconded by Ian Gifford

Anuj wants it be put in the minutes that this is a forced merger.

The chair said that IEEE officials told him that: Once Contributions are made in the WG, they are considered part of the public domain.

Karen said that the assumption is that if companies don’t come forward with their IP then the IEEE does not acknowledge any IP.

Anuj asks for a ruling from Exec and PatCom on this IP issue.

Francois Chin said he rejects calling this a merger and should be re-worded.

Ian Gifford asked for a role call vote.

Mathew Shoemake said he rejects a roll call vote. Chair said please explain. Mathew than said if a single person says asks for a roll call vote, then the chair will accept it. The chair answered “yes”

The chair then read the rules on request of a roll call vote.

Anuj Batra asked Point of information – overuse of roll call vote. He said that Ian Gifford and John Barr have consistently requested roll call votes. He requested the chair to not do the roll call vote due to overuse by those individuals. The chair said we would continue with the roll call vote.

The results of the roll call vote on the motion made by Matt Welborn was:


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

ROLL CALL VOTE RESULTSYES: 54 (61.4%)NO: 34 (38.6%)ABSTAIN: 4 LAST NAME, FIRST NAME, VOTEAlfvin, Richard, YESAllen, James, YESAoki, Mikio, ABSTAINArnett, Larry, YESAskar, Naiel, NOBain, Jay, YESBarr, John, YESBatra, Anuj, NOBosco, Bruce, YESBowles, Mark, NOBrabenac, Charles, NOBrethour, Vern, NOBrown, Ronald, NOChoi, Yun, NOChong, Chia-Chin, NOCorral, Celestino, YESDecuir, Joe, NODrude, Stefan, NODutkiewicz, Eryk, YESDydyk, Michael, YESEmami, Shahriar, YESFisher, Reed, YESFleming, Kristoffer, NOGandia Sanchez, Ricardo, YESGifford, Ian, YESGilb, James, YESGoldenberg, Sorin, NOHarris, Jeff, NOHasty, Vann, YESHeberling, Allen, YESHerold, Barry, YESHeubaum, Karl, YESHoghooghi, Michael, YESHuang, Robert, NOHuang, Xiaojing, YESIkegami, Tetsushi, YESKaraoguz, Jeyhan, NOKelly, Michael, NO


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

Kinney, Patrick, YESKleindl, Guenter, ABSTAINKuramochi, Yuzo, YESLampe, John, YESLeach, David, YESLee, Kyung-Kuk, NOLeeper, David, NOLi, Huan-Bang, YESLowe, Darryn, YESMaeda, Tadahiko, YESMcInnis, Michael, YESMcLaughlin, Michael, YESMo, Shaomin, NOMolisch, Andreas, NOMoore, Mark, YESNaganuma, Ken, YESNakache, Yves-Paul, NONobuyuki, Mizukoshi, NONoda, Masaki, ABSTAINNoens, Richard, YESOdman, Knut, YESOgawa, Hiroyo, YESOrlik, Philip, NOPardee, John, YESPatel, Vijay, YESPatton, Dave, NOPellon, Miguel, YESPowell, Clinton, YESRazzell, Charles, NORikuta, Yuko, YESRobar, Terry, YESRypinski, Chandos, YESSahinoglu, Zafer, NOSaito, Tomoki, NOSarallo, John, YESSchylander, Erik, NOShimada, Shusaku, ABSTAINShoemake, Matthew, NOShvodian, William, YESTakizawa, Kenichi, YESTanahashi, Mike, NOWang, Jerry, YESWeber, Chris, YESWelborn, Matthew, YES


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

Wineinger, Gerald, NOWood, Stephen, NOWu, Xiaodong, YESWu, Yu-Ming, YESYamaguchi, Hirohisa, NOYung, Hon, YESYurdakul, Serdar, NOZhang, Honggang, YESZheng, Frank Xiaojun, YESZyren, James, YES

The motion fails since it did not meet the 75% rule.

Michael Mc Laughlin made the following motion seconded by Matt Welborn:

That the task group requires the authors of both remaining proposals to list SIX technical features of the opposing proposal that they would be prepare to accept as part of a 802.15.3a standard. This list shall be provided by 20th February 2005.

Anuj Batra said he likes the idea, but is struggling how to accomplish this. How can we get beyond the single carrier vs. multi-carrier approach?Eric said it is very difficult to pick a technical feature.A clear objective must be set forth.Yamaguchi: What process takes after we chose 12 technical features? What concrete proposal does this choose. Please list what you would put on the list?Ian: This is the opposite of what we have been doing (finding what is wrong with the other’s proposal).Anuj suggested that we spend time working on International regulatory issues.Ian says we can all multitask.Anuj calls the questions.

Vote was:28 For27 Against0 Abstain

Motion passed.

Primary argument moving against a dual phy is that it would put the decision

Andy Gowen will be able to talk to the body tomorrow. A copy of the presentation will be available.There was a series of comments before the Berlin sent to IEEE. Another review will be done with IEEE Execs.


January 2005 IEEE P802.15-05/0047r2

Timeline – 6 months from when we do adown select. The objectives for Atlanta will be the second confirmation. Three weeks from tomorrow all no vote comments are due.

Larry Arnett said, “We have now come to an impasse on our impasse. As I recall the primary argument against a dual PHY is keeping the decision away from the consumer. We can continue to waist our time and find no consensus. The result is dual PHYs battling it out in the market. We can kill the PAR. The result is dual PHYs battling it out in the market. We can split the PAR. The result is dual PHYs battling it out in the market. Or we can act as a professional standards body, working toward consensus and approving dual PHYs. The result is dual PHYs battling it out in the market.”

Ian Gifford made a motion to adjourn and Jack Pardee seconded. The chair asked if there was any discussion or objections. There were none.

The meeting adjourned at 2:53 PM


monterey, ca tg3a minutes - ieee standards association · web viewtitle monterey, ca tg3a minutes...

Documents