ieee 802.15 working group for wireless personal area networks (wpans )

November 2002

Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 2

doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r1

Submission

IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)

SG3a Down Selection Subcommittee Closing Report

November 2002

Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 3

doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r1

Submission

Contents

• Down Selection Decision Summary

• Scoring Discussion

November 2002

Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 4

doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r1

Submission

Down Selection Process

• Options Considered with Straw Poll Results– Separate Evaluation/Down Selection Voting: 42– Evaluation is the Down Selection Voting

(combined) : 3– Down Selection Voting only: 0– Abstain: 14

Red = Winner straw poll

November 2002

Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 5

doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r1

Submission

Evaluation Process

• Evaluation is Really 2 discussions (or phases)– Criteria Importance Level

• Mandatory/Optional• ABC

– A: Mandatory requirement – B: Important desired requirement– C: A nice to have requirement

• Weighted values (0 – 10)• None

– Scoring• Pass/Fail• Pugh Matrix

– Better (+), Same, Worse (-) than a Baseline Solution• Rating (n > 2)• None

November 2002

Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 6

doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r1

Submission

Evaluation ProcessOptions Matrix

Sco

rin

g

Criteria Importance LevelMandatory/

Optional

ABC Rating Weighted Values

Pass/Fail

Pugh Matrix

Rating (0-5)

November 2002

Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 7

doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r1

Submission

Evaluation Process

No Criteria Importance Level Scoring Straw Poll Count

1 Mandatory/Optional Pass/Fail 0

2 Mandatory/Optional Rating (n >2) 7

3 ABC Rating Pass/Fail 0

4 ABC Rating Rating (n>2) 40

5 Weighted Values Pugh Matrix 0

6 Weighted Values Rating (n>2) 5

7 None Pass/Fail

8 None Pugh Matrix

9 None Rating (0-5)

10 None None

11 Abstain 1

Grey = Voted off the straw pollRed = Winner straw poll

November 2002

Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 8

doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r1

Submission

Criteria Importance Level Results

CRITERIA REF.IMPORTANCE

LEVEL A B C T A% B% C% T% Discuss Possible Reasons

Unit Manufacturing Complexity (UMC)

3.1 B13 16 2 31 42% 52% 6% 100% Y Definition of terms

Interference And Susceptibility

3.2.2 A21 9 1 31 68% 29% 3% 100% N

Coexistence 3.2.3 A 20 9 2 31 65% 29% 6% 100% N

Technical FeasibilityManufacturability 3.3.1 A 21 9 1 31 68% 29% 3% 100% N

Time To Market 3.3.2 A 21 5 5 31 68% 16% 16% 100% N

Regulatory Impact 3.3.3 A 17 10 4 31 55% 32% 13% 100% N

Scalability (i.e. Payload Bit Rate/Data Throughput, Channelization – physical or coded, Complexity, Range, Frequencies of Operation, Bandwidth of Operation, Power Consumption)

3.4 A

14 10 2 26 54% 38% 8% 100% N

Location Awareness 3.5 C 6 7 18 31 19% 23% 58% 100% N

Signal Robustness

November 2002

Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 9

doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r1

Submission

Criteria Importance Level Results (cont.)

CRITERIA REF.IMPORTANCE

LEVEL A B C T A% B% C% T% Discuss Possible Reasons

MAC Enhancements And Modifications

4.1. C4 8 17 29 14% 28% 59% 100% N

CRITERIA REF.IMPORTANCE

LEVEL A B C T A% B% C% T% Discuss Possible Reasons

Size And Form Factor 5.1 B 11 17 4 32 34% 53% 13% 100% N

N

Payload Bit Rate 5.2.1 A 28 4 0 32 88% 13% 0% 100% N

PHY-SAP Data Throughput 5.2.2 A 30 2 0 32 94% 6% 0% 100% N

Simultaneously Operating Piconets

5.3 A16 13 3 32 50% 41% 9% 100% Y

Application Split, peer-to-peer vs. centralized

Signal Acquisition 5.4 A 22 9 0 31 71% 29% 0% 100% N

Link Budget 5.5 A 18 12 1 31 58% 39% 3% 100% N

Sensitivity 5.6 A 19 11 1 31 61% 35% 3% 100% N

Environment Model 5.7.1 A 15 13 2 30 50% 43% 7% 100% Y User vs. Producer Focus

Delay Spread Tolerance 5.7.2 A 15 11 5 31 48% 35% 16% 100% Y User vs. Producer Focus

Power Management Modes 5.8 B13 16 2 31 42% 52% 6% 100% Y

User vs. Producer Requirement

Power Consumption 5.9 A 18 13 0 31 58% 42% 0% 100% Y

Antenna Practicality 5.1 B 10 17 3 30 33% 57% 10% 100% N

PHY-SAP Payload Bit Rate & Data Throughput

Multi-Path Immunity 5.7 A

November 2002

Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 10

doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r1

Submission

Down Selection Voting Procedure

Options Considered with Straw Poll Results – Ranking vote (lowest rank voted off): 2– Vote for desired proposal (lowest # of votes is off): 14– 2 staged vote (eliminate low support proposals, vote

for desired proposal): 22/32– Two votes per voting member (lowest number off):

18/21– Abstain: 5/5

Red = Winner straw poll

November 2002

Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 11

doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r1

Submission

Down Selection Procedure Activity

• Ad-Hoc group met Tuesday evening to develop proposed text for sub-committee

• Sub-committee reviewed on Thursday, just prior to this presentation (update in minutes of this session)

November 2002

Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 12

doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r1

Submission

Scoring Discussion

• Document scoring method in Annex for inclusion in IEEE P802.15-02/105 Alternate PHY Selection Criteria

• Next Decisions– Extent of Scoring: tabulated information vs. tabulated information

with committee analysis– Criteria to Score: only most important (A’s only) vs. all criteria– Definition of N > 2 Rating

• ++ / + / 0 / - / --• Far Exceeds / Exceeds / Meets / Not Meet / Unacceptable• + / 0 / -• Unacceptable / Acceptable / Superior

November 2002

Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 13

doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r1

Submission

Thank you to everyone for driving towards solid decisions!!!!