Sept 2003 doc IEEE 802 15 03xxxr 0

Sept. 2003 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -03/xxxr 0 Project: IEEE P 802. 15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Evaluation of TG 3 a Proposals and Open Issues] Date Submitted: [Sept. 2003] Source: [Inhwan Kim] Company [Samsung] Address [416 Maetan 3 -Dong Paldal-Gu Suwon-Si Gyeonggi-Do, Korea 442 -742] Voice[82. 31. 200. 2510], FAX: [82. 31. 200. 3350], E-Mail: [inhwan@samsung. com, yunsang. park@samsung. com] Source: [Carl Mansfield, Susumu Kitaguchi, Song-Lin Young] Company [Sharp Corp, Sharp Labs. of America] Address [5750 NW Pacific Rim Blvd, Camas, WA, 98607] Voice: [+1 360 834 8764], FAX: [+1 360 834 8696], E-Mail [cmansfield@sharplabs. com, kitaguchi@isl. nara. sharp. co. jp, syoung@sharplabs. com] Re: [P 802. 15 -03/276 r 0] Abstract: [This document compares two Alt-PHY proposals vs. CE Requirements Criteria in doc. 03/276 r 0 and lists open issues common/specific to each proposal. ] Purpose: [The purpose of this document is to provide to TG 3 a a joint contribution of Sharp and Samsung comparing the requirements of the CE industry with two TG 3 a proposals to aid in the selection process for candidate Alt PHY. ] Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P 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 P 802. 15. Submission 1 Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et. al[Sharp]

Sept. 2003 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -03/xxxr 0 Evaluation of TG 3 a Proposals vs. CE Requirements and Open Issues Submission 2 Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et. al[Sharp]

Sept. 2003 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -03/xxxr 0 CE perspective on criteria requirements (1) Maximum: Source: 03276 r 0 P 802 -15_TG 3 a-Consumer-Electronic-Requirements-for-TG 3 a. ppt, Slide 10 Submission 3 Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et. al[Sharp]

Sept. 2003 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -03/xxxr 0 CE perspective on criteria requirements (2) Source: 03276 r 0 P 802 -15_TG 3 a-Consumer-Electronic-Requirements-for-TG 3 a. ppt, Slide 11 Submission 4 Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et. al[Sharp]

Sept. 2003 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -03/xxxr 0 Proposal Responses, MB-OFDM (1) Criteria Cost and Complexity Interference Robustness Multi-Piconet Support Doc. 03/267 r 5 & 03/268 r 0 Mode 1 Mode 2 Die size: 4. 6(=2. 7+1. 9)mm 2 (90 nm), 6. 8(=3+3. 8) mm 2 (130 nm) Size Microwave oven: 0. 16 m 802. 11 a & b, 802. 15. 3: ~0. 2 m Bluetooth (802. 15. 1) & 802. 15. 4: ~0. 02 m Modulated interferer: SIR>-9 d. B(-3. 6 in May) Tone interferer: SIR>-7. 9 d. B (-5. 6 in May) 110 Mbps: Dint/Dref for CM 1 -CM 4 given in Slide 29, up to 4 SOP. 200 Mbps: NA Not disclosed • Total cost/complexity should be compared to relative scale of 802. 11 a/Bluetooth, 802. 11 b/Bluetooth for Home theater, Portable applications respectively • Mode 2 should identify incremental cost of frequency dependent external components • Mode 2 performance is required • For 802. 11 a/b/g, 0. 2 m does not meet Portable device requirement of 1 -5 cm 110/200 Mbps Dint/Dref for CM 1 -CM 4 given in Slide 30, 31 respectively up to 4 SOP. Not addressed • Mode 1 200 Mbps performance required • Degradation of throughput not reported, <50% required • Meet min. required 4 SOP, but 8 is desired • New information required 110 Mb/s, 130/90 nm CMOS TX: 117/93 m. W RX: 205/155 m. W Sleep: 18/15 u. W 110 Mb/s, 130/90 nm CMOS TX: 186/150 m. W RX: 271/209 m. W Sleep: 18/15 u. W PC & CF cards, memory stick, and SD memory form factors in 2005 16 mmx 13. 6 mmx 3 mm antenna commercially available Not addressed Data do not meet CE requirements Submission Die size: 4. 8(=2. 9+1. 9)mm 2 (90 nm), 7. 0(=3. 2+3. 8) mm 2 (130 nm) 90 nm CMOS foundries available 1 H 2004 Digital portion (for PHY) gate count: 295 k External components: pre-selection filter, balun, crystal oscillator, voltage regulator, SRAM Fast Connect Power Consumption Comments from CE prospects • Mode 1 meets desired 300 m. W(Home theater) and max. 200 m. W(Portable) • Mode 2 (130 nm) may not meet 200 m. W for Portable • Data for 200 Mbps required • Antenna size meets both Home theater and Portable requirement • Not clear whether module meets 5 mmx 5 mm requirement for portable devices • Not clear whether Mode 2 same as Mode 1 Additional data required 5 Data meet CE requirements Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et. al[Sharp]

Sept. 2003 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -03/xxxr 0 Proposal Responses, MB-OFDM (2) Criteria Doc. 03/267 r 5 & 03/268 r 0 Mode 1 Mode 2 Comments from CE prospects 90% Link success for 8%PER of 1024 bytes: Range and coverage Data Rate Sets Flexibility/ Scalability Ranging/ Location Awareness Time to Market Local Regulatory Adaptability 110 Mbps 200 Mbps AWGN: 20. 5 m AWGN: 14. 1 m CM 1: 11. 5 m CM 1: 6. 9 m CM 2: 10. 9 m CM 2: 6. 3 m CM 3: 11. 6 m CM 3: 6. 8 m CM 4: 11 m CM 4: 5. 0 m Mandatory: 55 Mbps (header), 110, and 200 Mbps Optional: 80, 160, 320, and 480 Mbps AWGN: 18. 4 m CM 1: Not disclosed CM 2: Not disclosed CM 3: Not disclosed CM 4: Not disclosed Allow positioning accuracy to within a few centimeters Exact mechanism is up to implementation Earliest complete CMOS PHY solutions for integration: 2005 • 98% Link success at 7 m (required) and 10 m (desired) for Home theater not used • 95%Link success at 5 m (required) for Portable not used • Data rate set meets requirements Data rate: 55 -480 Mbps Frequency: Mode 1(Mandatory)& Mode 2 (Optional) Complexity: Mandatory data rates require only one DAC & mixer for TX train; Digital section scales with future CMOS process; implementation could always trade off complexity for performance Power: half rate PRF increases off time to enable power saving modes; trade off power consumption for range and data rate • Support of higher throughput meets desired requirement • Support for interoperable implementations of lower throughput with reduced cost/complexity not reported • Specific data for range and resolution required Not clear whether it’s same as Mode 1 Sub-band can be adjusted for different regulatory areas Data do not meet CE requirements Submission • Performance data for Mode 2 required • Not clear whether availability is 1 H 2005 (required) • Not clear whether Mode 2 availability same time as Mode 1 • Adaptability meets CE requirements • FH issue to be cleared by FCC Additional data required 6 Data meet CE requirements Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et. al[Sharp]

Sept. 2003 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -03/xxxr 0 Proposal Responses, XSI /Parthus. Ceva -CDMA (1) Criteria Cost and Complexity Interference Robustness Doc. 03/153 r 10 & 03/154 r 3 Comments from CE prospects • Total cost/complexity(Silicon+Module/External RF front end: 4. 7 x 4. 1 mm, 0. 18 um Si. Ge PLCP BB: 4. 4 x 4. 4 mm, 0. 18 um CMOS/Si. Ge(RF front end) process in 2002 Gate count: TBD External components: Not disclosed Components+Antenna) should be compared to relative scale of 802. 11 a/Bluetooth, 802. 11 b/Bluetooth for Home theater, Portable applications respectively • Gate count information required • External components information required 802. 11 b/g, 802. 15. 3/4, microwave ovens: Receiver does not respond to either 2. 4 GHz or 900 MHz ISM bands 802. 11 a: Receiver does not respond to either 5 GHz NII bands Processing gain provides SIR>-14 d. B for narrow band (modulated or tone) interference Notch filter can provide up to 40 d. B additional interference rejection • No results reported regarding to 10 -20 cm for Home theater or 15 cm for Portable devices required for all interference sources Multi-Piconet Support 114/200 Mbps: Dint/Dref for CM 1 -CM 4 given in Slide 39, 40 for up to 4 SOP RMS cross-correlation < -15 d. B in a flat fading channel • Degradation of throughput not reported, <50% required • Meet min. required 4 SOP, but 8 is desired Fast Connect Not addressed • New information required Power Consumption Size TX: 107 m. W (RF & PLCP) RX: 174 m. W (RF & PLCP) Sleep: 2 m. W (PLCP) Idle: 23 m. W (PLCP) • LB antenna meets required 4 cmx 4 cm for Home theater; HB antenna meets required 2 cmx 2 cm for Portable • LB antenna exceeds 2 cmx 2 cm required by Portable • Module size information required • External components information required Antenna size: LB: 1. 1 x 1. 1 in; HB: 0. 6 x 0. 6 in Module size not disclosed External components not disclosed Data do not meet CE requirements Submission • Data meet desired 300 m. W(Home theater) and required 200 m. W (Portable) if 90 nm CMOS used • Data for processes used in current design required Note: Based on 90 nm CMOS Additional data required 7 Data meet CE requirements Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et. al[Sharp]

Sept. 2003 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -03/xxxr 0 Proposal Responses, XSI/Parthus. Ceva-CDMA (2) Criteria Doc. 03/153 r 10 & 03/154 r 3 Comments from CE prospects Average PER for 90% Link success (8% PER) Range and coverage Data Rate Sets Flexibility/ Scalability Ranging/ Location Awareness Time to Market • 98% Link success at 7 m (required) and 10 m (desired) for • 95%Link success at 5 m (required) for Portable not used • Performance data for 90% Link successful distance Architecture allows components (FEC, each receiver channel, etc) usage to be adjusted such that incremental hardware additions result in the highest incremental SNR improvement. • Support for interoperable implementations of lower 10 cm resolution in 20 m range • Range and resolution meet requirements LB: Production chip end of 2003 HB & Duplex: N/A • LB meets desired 2 H 2004 Data do not meet CE requirements preferred for comparison • Data rate set meets requirements • Support of higher throughput meets desired requirement throughput with reduced cost/complexity not reported • Availability of other bands (HB, duplex, joint) required • Availability of CMOS implementation required) Local Regulatory Center frequency and bandwidth adjustable without changes of silicon Adaptability Submission Home theater not used 114 Mbps 200 Mbps AWGN: 21. 6 m AWGN: 15. 8 m CM 1: 15 m CM 1: 11. 1 m CM 2: 13. 5 m CM 2: 10 m CM 3: 11. 5 m CM 3: 8. 8 m CM 4: 10 m CM 4: 7. 5 m LB: 28. 5 -400 Mbps HB: 57 -800 Mbps Duplex: up to 1. 2 GHz 4 types of spectral usage (LB, HB, Duplex, Joint band) for up to 1. 2 Gbps Additional data required 8 • Adaptability meets CE requirements Data meet CE requirements Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et. al[Sharp]

Sept. 2003 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -03/xxxr 0 Common Issues • Cost/Complexity: – External components, antenna, and PCB should be included in addition to chip die sizes • Multi-piconet support: – No data for SOP more than 4 (8 desired). Please provide data for SOP more that 4. – Degradation of throughput has not been reported. Please provide. • Connection Time: – Please provide Connection Time assessment and data for evaluation • Range/coverage: – Both distance of 90% link success and distance of average PER for 90% link success should be reported, or a conversion factor should be provided. – 98%, 95% Link success distance for Home theater and Portable applications respectively are required. – Path loss exponents used in CM 1 -CM 4 range calculations should be indicated • Flexibility/Scalability: – Support Submission of low throughput for less cost/complexity not mentioned 9 Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et. al[Sharp]

Sept. 2003 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -03/xxxr 0 Questions on MB-OFDM Proposal • Time-Frequency Code (TFC) management – Code acquisition methods required for: • New device association • Scanning available TFC to initiate a new piconet – Rotation Sequence (RS) vs. Channelization & Multiple Access (See next slide): • There appears to be a contradiction or ambiguity between the RS method described in 03/268 r 0, p. 50, Figure 22 and the TFC method described in 03/268 r 0, p. 35 Table 20. • Please resolve the contradiction. • Which of these two different methods was used to measure the performance reported in MB-OFDM proposal? – Synchronization of TFC • It appears that SOP performance depends on synchronization of THC, i. e. 2 and 1 overlapped sub-bands for Mode 1 and Mode 2 respectively • Unsynchronized TFC of two different piconets will have 4 and 2 overlapped sub-bands for Mode 1, 2 respectively • Scenarios regarding TFC synchronization for SOP performance requires clarification • Collisions of sub-band frequency and adjacent frequency to be accounted for. Submission 10 Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et. al[Sharp]

Sept. 2003 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -03/xxxr 0 MB-OFDM - TFC vs. Rotation Sequence Source: 03/268 r 0, p. 50, Figure 22 RS-1 TFC-3 TFC-2 TFC-1 TFC-2 TFC-3 RS-2 TFC-3 TFC-1 TFC-3 TFC-2 TFC-1 • In slide 10 of Doc. 03/267 r 5 , ”For a given superframe, the time-frequency code is specified in the beacon by the PNC. The time-frequency code is changed from one superframe to another in order to randomize multi-piconet interference” • Randomization of sub-bands by Rotation Sequence (RS), in p. 50 of Doc. 03/268 r 0 Source: 03/268 r 0, p. 35 Table 20 • Four channel no. (TH codes) each mode for multiple access. (slide 21 of Doc. 03/267 r 5 ) • 1. 4. 2 of Doc. 03/268 r 0 (p. 35): “Channelization for different piconets is achieved by using different time frequency codes for different piconets. ” Submission 11 Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et. al[Sharp]

Sept. 2003 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -03/xxxr 0 Questions on MB-OFDM Proposal - continued • Management of operation mode: – Mode 2 performance data is incomplete. Please provide complete data. – A discussion of the performance of hybrid operations is requested • Mode 1 & 2 in the same piconet. • Mode 1 & 2 used in different piconets, collisions of TFC to be considered • Hybrid SOP performance vs. throughput – How is the decision to change Mode 1 and Mode 2 made? – Who makes the decision to change modes? Submission 12 Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et. al[Sharp]

Sept. 2003 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -03/xxxr 0 Questions on XSI/Parthus. Ceva Proposal • Cost/Complexity and Size: – External components need to be identified. – What is the PLCP baseband gate count? It is listed as TBD (p. 6, 03/154 r 3) • Power consumption: – Power consumption estimate given is for 90 nm CMOS (p. 6, 03/154 r 3). – What is power consumption of current design? – This is important since all the performance data reported is for the current process used: • 0. 18 um Si. Ge (RF front end) and CMOS(BB) • Time to Market: – The performance data associated with total CMOS implementation (e. g. 90 nm, 130 nm process) should be reported. – Please address the availability of HB and duplex, joint bands Submission 13 Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et. al[Sharp]