September 2004 IEEE P802.15-04/511r5
IEEE P802.15
Wireless Personal Area Networks
Project / IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)Title / Consolidation of Questions on Responses of No Vote Explanations
Date Submitted / 14 September 2004
Source / [Gerald W. Wineinger]
[TI]
[Dallas, Texas] / Voice: [214 480 1013]
Fax: [214 480 6662]
E-mail: [
Re: / 802.15.3a Task Group Questions on Responses of No Vote Explanations
Abstract / Questions on Responses of No Vote Explanations Task Group 3a in Berlin
Purpose / Consolidate Questions on Responses of No Vote Explanations Task Group 3a in Berlin
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
Consolidation of Questions on Responses of No Vote Explanations in Alphabetical Order
The following are the Questions from the No Vote authors concerning the response they were given on their explanation
Roberto Aiello:
Here are some questions referring to doc 513.
1. which silicon manufacturers will start interoperability in Q4 04? Is interoperability based on the IEEE proposal or on a different specification? If it is a different specification, what are the differences and does is meet the PAR?
2. please explain what you mean with Bluetooth philosophy? If the UWB forum also includes the MAC, what is the IP situation? My understanding is that companies have submitted RAND statement for the 15.3 MAC when used with IEEE PHY, not without. Which industry alliances are currently working with UWB Forum (WiMedia, 1394TA, WUSB, etc.)? These Alliances are already working with the MBOA.
3. we have heard yesterday that the currently certified UWB transmitter is an evaluation system, but you called it “product ready form”. I am still confused. Can you please explain what you mean by product ready?
4: will DS-UWB products based on 1394 have the 1394 logo so that consumer experience can be “exceedingly easy”? My understanding is that the 1394 is working on a PAL for WiMedia, which has adopted the MBOA
5: please indicate which major CE companies are members of the UWB Forum. All major CE companies are members of the MBOA
My question is: why is the spectrum shown here so choppy? More specifically, the plot in Fig 4.1 doesn’t appear to meet the minimum 500MHz bandwidth and the total power seems to be at least 5dB lower than the ideal case in both cases. Is this taken care in the proposal presentation?
FCC Certification Test Report
for
Motorola Corporation
FCC ID: RUN-XSUWBWDK
Chuck Brabenac:
Bill, In this evening's TG3a discussion on "no vote" comments, you and I briefly digressed into some discussion on your notion of using only preamble-based CSMA-CA techniques, vs. an additional "energy-based"
capability where CCA can be performed anywhere within a packet.
In addition to the (marginally) interesting power conservation considerations I mentioned for some applications, there is the much more important/fundamental consideration that preamble detection sometimes doesn't work (missed detections). In that case, it is desirable to have the "energy based" CCA capability in order to avoid collisions with other CAP and TDMA (co-channel on different piconet) traffic of nearby devices.
To be sure, when you have successfully detected preamble you can use preferred techniques such as virtual carrier sense (based on PLCP header len & rate), and failing that, continuous decode of symbols when you have already established channel coherency, but again those things are not available when you miss the preamble. This is why other standards (e.g., 802.11a) specify/require an "energy based" CCA for CSMA/CA.
For a high level tutorial on the flavors/considerations of CCA, and why the DS-UWB proposal shouldn't now discount the value of an "energy based" CCA (the kind that DS-UWB proposal has showed in the form of a squaring circuit that we identified problems with), please check out the Sept. '03 Singapore presentation I contributed to (03-0343-01, slides 91 to 113, and also 114 to 144). I made reference to this material in my no vote reason, and I'd really like to see the DS-UWB proposers study that content (we truly put a lot of work into it), and fully address those concerns.
Ron Brown:
Based on the presentation by Michael Mc Laughlin, It seems that the DS-UWB proposal promoters still advocate a design that uses convolutional encoding with different constraint-lengths for different rates.
Please explain how requiring a receiver to implement multiple decoder trellis widths results in a complexity and power consumption advantage.
Jason Ellis:
I express my appreciation to merge Proposal #2 for their extensive contributions to no vote responses; however, I find that my concerns were not resolved as many of the proposed remedies were too vague and did not get to the core of my concerns:
My “No Vote” Summary of Topics
• Time to market
• Common signaling mode
• No ecosystem adoption
• Multiple vendors
• Insufficient and misrepresented information
• Lack of regulatory clarification
• Scalability
• Multipath
• Intellectual Property
Time to market
My original no vote concern:
Merge proposal #2 claims time to market advantage of silicon that is supposedly available in the market as generation 3; however, merge proposal #2 has recently drastically changed and the silicon does not represent the proposal before us; does not meet performance requirements as specified by the selection criteria, including power consumption. For me to change my no vote to yes would require seeing working silicon that implements the proposal as I fear there is significant time to market concerns for merge proposal #2.
No Vote Response from Merge Proposal #2
• Multiple Tier 1 Module vendors on target to provide DS-UWB modules to ease integration challenges
• Multiple Major ODH/CM houses expected to take advantage of low-risk integration of DS-UWB modules into embedded CE platforms
• Multiple CE, Computer and Cellular manufacturers working to integrate DS-UWB in several product spaces and DS-UWB is available for the market today (04/513r0)
My questions relating to the response from Merge Proposal #2
– I find these responses to be sufficiently vague – I have heard numerous claims over the years from the DS-UWB affiliates, and over and over those claims never materialized; to adequately resolve my no vote concerns, I need to know who supports the technology and need to understand what is claimed to be available for the market today
– We heard yesterday that the currently certified UWB transmitter is an evaluation system, but you called it “product ready form”. I am still confused. Can you please explain what you mean by product ready?
– There is too much confusion between what DS-UWB affiliates demo, certify, present as their proposal, and there has been no correlation of these activities. I would like, in writing, how the chipsets, the development platforms, the IEEE Merge Proposal #2, etc… relate to each other. Further, I wish to understand the actual product roadmap for the technology, as even today, talking with various sources and reading various news and press releases, I find conflicting information.
– Market ramp is expected to soar significantly with all-CMOS solutions due to low cost; does anyone developing the DS-UWB approach have a plan for all-CMOS, if so, who and what is the roadmap?
– Please substantiate how you derive a 2 year time to market advantage over those developing MB-OFDM
– MB-OFDM has multiple vendors out of the gate, competitive products are expected to be offered which will accelerate time to market for MB-OFDM solutions; do DS-UWB developers have similar competition or is it single-sourced by Freescale?
Common Signaling Mode
My original no vote concern:
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.
No Vote Response from Merge Proposal #2
• 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. (04/454r1)
My questions relating to the response from Merge Proposal #2
– The above statement that CSM is not included in the proposal resolves my concern; so long as it does not re-enter the proposal. I find that the CSM mode does indeed violate the PAR due to its intended use.
No Ecosystem Adoption
My original no vote concern:
There would need to be a certification and compliance program in place to support the PHY standard for me to change my no vote to yes; as there is fear of interoperability if there is no organization. Merge proposal #1 has a compliance and certification program in place, as specified by the WiMedia Alliance. There would need to be adoption of merge proposal #2 by major industry segments for me to believe that the industry believes the performance capabilities of merge proposal #2. Merge proposal #1 has major industry adoption, including the Wireless USB Promoters Group, and I fear that merge proposal #2 has minimal industry support.
No Vote Response from Merge Proposal #2
• UWB Forum presents more of a Bluetooth philosophy toward end-to-end compliance, certification and application testing
• 75 (and rapidly growing) participant companies, with major test and conformance houses in process of joining
• Interoperability and Certification Test Task Group established within UWBF to address these issues
• Membership within working group growing steadily, much experience with interop/certification in other industry open/closed standards
• Would like to work with other industry alliances to promote broader interoperability or compatibility for UWB solutions in many spaces (04/513r0)
My questions relating to the response from Merge Proposal #2
– These answers are sufficiently vague and therefore do not resolve my no vote concerns
– Is the UWB Forum an established entity which can engage in compliance and interoperability and manage a logo program?
– Please explain what you mean with Bluetooth philosophy? If the UWB forum also includes the MAC, what is the IP situation? My understanding is that companies have submitted RAND statement for the 15.3 MAC when used with IEEE PHY, not without. Which industry alliances are currently working with UWB Forum (WiMedia, 1394TA, WUSB, etc.)? These Alliances are already working with the MBOA.
– How does the UWB Forum work with IP based solutions?
Multiple Vendors
My original no vote concern:
There would need to be multiple vendors of silicon to enable a competitive ecosystem for me to change my no vote to a yes.
No Vote Response from Merge Proposal #2
• The UWB Forum is an industry alliance with over 75 member companies
• Many of these companies are silicon vendors
• Efforts already underway by several silicon component vendors to start interoperability efforts in 4Q2004 (04/513r)
• UWB Forum driving industry acceptance of DS-UWB and IEEE802.15.3, an essential requirement for IEEE802.15.3a
• An FCC compliant solution using the same DS-UWB waveform is available in the market today
• Multiple silicon vendors working on interoperability testing right now
My questions relating to the response from Merge Proposal #2
– I find these answers to be sufficiently vague, so they do not resolve my no vote concerns
– Which silicon manufacturers will start interoperability in 4Q04? Is interoperability based on the IEEE proposal or on a different specification? If it is a different specification, what are the differences and does is meet the PAR?
– Who are the multiple silicon vendors working on interoperability now?
Insufficient and Misrepresented Information
My original no vote concern:
The information presented by merge proposal #2 is in a fashion that is confusing as it does not stay true to modes of operation, performance capabilities and complexity/power consumption. There are insufficient details on the transmitter and receiver architecture, coding schemes, modulation for validation of the claims presented by merge proposal #2.
No Vote Response from Merge Proposal #2
• A review of the history of the Merger#2 proposal and the DS-UWB proposal is stable and well-defined
• A clear summary presentation of the DS-UWB proposal
• Consistent & complete performance and complexity results with superior performance with lower complexity (04/516r0)
My questions relating to the response from Merge Proposal #2
– I thank the people of Merge Proposal #2 for taking the effort to work through this request for clarification; however, the information is still lacking, vague, confusing, and I would need to see the proposal updated in a consistent fashion
– Further, I need to see justification and simulation results for assurance that the performance results are indeed accurate – Specifically, I recall claims on power consumption that are inconsistent, such as is it 200mW or 750mW, or now sub 100mW?
– Are there other sources, beyond Freescale, that can provide their own simulation results that validate the performance claims – the MB-OFDM companies have independently verified their claims
Lack of Regulatory Clarification
My original no vote concern:
Merge proposal #2 silicon would need to be certified by regulatory agencies as it isn’t clear if their proposal meets out of band emissions. Further, the lack of spectrum flexibility (band selection) concerns me in the worldwide regulatory environment because of a lack of ability to support radio astronomy bands. There is strong concern that merge proposal #2 can serve as a worldwide radio in its present form.
No Vote Response from Merge Proposal #2
• Freescale’s Implementation of DS-UWB has been certified by the FCC (04/503r0)
• There are no existing international regulations (04/503r0)
My questions relating to the response from Merge Proposal #2
– I do not know the performance of the system that was certified and would need to know that information