Transcript 01028r2P802-15_TG3-Coding-criteria.ppt

13 January 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/028r2
Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Submission Title: [TG3-Coding-criteria]
Date Submitted: [11 January 2001]
Source: [James P. K. Gilb] Company [Mobilian]
Address [11031 Via Frontera, Suite C, San Diego, CA 92127]
Voice:[1-858-451-3438], FAX: [1-858-451-3546], E-Mail:[[email protected]]
Re: []
Abstract: [The criteria for evaluating PHY coding methods for the P802.15.3 draft standard.]
Purpose: [Describe the evaluation criteria for the voting members.]
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.
Submission
Slide 1
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
13 January 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/028r2
Background
• The candidate draft standard was approved in
November with the coding method for the higher
order modulations (16-QAM, 32-QAM and 64QAM) left undefined
• Four coding schemes were part of the proposals in
Tampa, two have dropped (Rios, Dabak).
• TG3 will vote to select one of two methods in
Monterey
• The methods will be evaluated against the relevant
criteria from P802.15-00/110r14
Submission
Slide 2
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
13 January 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/028r2
Criteria Outline
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Unit Manufacturing Cost
Delay Spread Resistance
Delivered Data Throughput
Range
Power Consumption
Latency
IP issues
Submission
Slide 3
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
13 January 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/028r2
Unit Manufacturing Cost
• UMC (section 2.1) addresses the PAR's
requirement for a low cost system.
• Enabling lower cost implementations will increase
the usefulness of the standard.
• All-digital implementations are on the favorable
cost-curve of Moore's law.
• What is relatively expensive in bits now will be
much cheaper in 4 years.
Submission
Slide 4
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
13 January 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/028r2
Unit Manufacturing Cost Criteria
Definition:
The incremental cost of all parts required to implement a
complete TX/RX coding solution including all logic and
memory.
Values:
The incremental cost in US $ of implementing the proposed
coding scheme calculated assuming $0.20 USD/100 kgates
Success Criteria:
Additional cost is less than ???
Submission
Slide 5
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
13 January 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/028r2
Delay Spread Resistance
• The wireless environment is hostile to high-speed
and wide-band signals.
• The short-range, home environment, however, is
more benign than office, factory or vehicular
environments.
• Some coding schemes may improve delay spread
resistance, others may not and rely instead on an
equalizer.
Submission
Slide 6
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
13 January 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/028r2
Delay Spread Resistance Criteria
Definition:
The delay spread tolerance is the value of T_RMS for which a maximum
FER of 1% is met for 95% of the channels generated using the channel
model defined in 4.8.1. The power level at the transmitter is set 14 dB
above the level required for a 1% FER in an AWGN channel. At least
1000 channels should be generated. Note that the channel model in 4.8.1
will generate channels with fading parameters, so at the receiver the
signal level will vary from one channel realization to the next channel
realization.
Values:
The value of T_RMS in ns
Success Criteria:
The value of T_RMS is greater than 25 ns
Submission
Slide 7
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
13 January 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/028r2
Delivered Data Throughput
• The requirement for the standard is a system
which can deliver 20 Mb/s.
• There is also a desire to have an enhanced mode
with greater than 40 Mb/s.
• The coding methods will decrease the delivered
data throughput while hopefully decreasing the
PER.
Submission
Slide 8
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
13 January 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/028r2
Delivered Data Throughput Criteria
Definition:
Delivered data throughput is the rate at which the user’s data is passed
through the system. The values presented here assume that a microwave
oven or other channel impairment will not be in operation at the same
time as the desired signals are transmitted. If there is an operating
microwave oven in the Personal Operating Space (POS) of this device, it
is assumed that the user has enough control of the POS environment to
turn it off when desiring to transmit.
Values:
Throughput in Mb/s and % overhead for each of the higher
order modulations calculated using P802.15-00/354r2
Success Criteria:
None defined, more is better
Submission
Slide 9
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
13 January 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/028r2
Range
• The PAR requires a system that has a 10 m range
in an environment where the user has control of
potential interferers.
• The range depends on the actual fading, both flat
and frequency-selective, the TX power, the RX
sensitivity and the presence of other interfering
devices.
• The actual range will be different at every location
will change over time.
Submission
Slide 10
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
13 January 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/028r2
Range Criteria
Definition:
Based on the 802.15.3 PAR, the proposed system shall be
able to initiate a WPAN connection within a 10 meter radius
99.9% of the time.
Values:
For each of the higher-order modulations, report the receiver
sensitivity assuming a receiver noise figure of 12 dB and
ideal isotropic antenna (i.e. 0 dBi gain).
Success Criteria:
Undefined, lower sensitivity is better
Submission
Slide 11
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
13 January 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/028r2
Power Consumption
• Wireless PAN connectivity implies small, mobile
devices.
• Battery life will be an important aspect to the
consumer
• Actual battery life will depend on the use model,
which has not been defined by TG3.
• The goal is for the coding to have a minimal
impact on the peak DC power consumption.
Submission
Slide 12
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
13 January 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/028r2
Power Consumption Criteria
Definition:
The total amount of DC power required by the proposed
system to operate the encoder or decoder for each of the
higher order modulation schemes.
Values:
The DC power requirement for the encoder/decoder circuitry
each of the higher-order modulations assuming 0.018
mW/(MHz*kgate)
Success Criteria:
Undefined, lower is better. Total peak power for complete
radio must be less than 0.5 W
Submission
Slide 13
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
13 January 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/028r2
Latency
• Latency was not specifically called out in the
criteria document, but it was implied in the
throughput requirement.
• A long latency in decoding or encoding a packet
will affect the TX/RX turnaround time and hence
degrade the efficiency of the system.
• A 10 ms TX/RX turnaround time has been proposed.
• Fast decisions need to be done in hardware since
software relies on interrupts which are relatively
slow.
Submission
Slide 14
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
13 January 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/028r2
Latency Criteria
Definition:
TX or encoding latency is the time from when the first bit to
be encoded is presented to the encoder until the its
representation is available at the output of the encoder.
RX or decoding latency is the time from when the first
demodulated symbol is present at the decoder until the first
valid decoded bit is available at the output of the decoder.
Values:
TX and RX latency times in ms
Success Criteria:
Undetermined, less is better
Submission
Slide 15
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
13 January 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/028r2
IP Issues
• IP issues are not explicitly called out in the criteria
document, but the IEEE has a very specific policy
on it for standards
• The preference for a standard is for it to be
unencumbered by essential IP claims
• Patented technology is allowed if it:
– provides an important technical benefit
– Is available in a non-discriminatory license for fair and
reasonable terms.
Submission
Slide 16
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
13 January 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/028r2
IP Issues Criteria
Definition:
What known or potential IP claims are there for the proposed
coding method.
Values:
A description of any potential IP or listing of the dates of
published references to the method.
Success Criteria:
Bad: IP not available for fair and reasonable terms
Better: IP owner has agrees to IEEE “fair and reasonable”
Best: Method described in the open literature > 20 years ago
or agrees to not enforce it’s IP.
Submission
Slide 17
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
13 January 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/028r2
Code Selection Process
Submission
Slide 18
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
13 January 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/028r2
Coding Proposal Presentations
• Monday – 3:51 PM – Karaoguz
Doc. #
• Tuesday – 8:02 AM – O’Farrell
Doc. #
Submission
Slide 19
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
13 January 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/028r2
Coding Voting Times
• Wednesday – 9:00
– Panel Discussion on Remaining 2 Methods
– 9:10 Each proposer has 2 minutes for position
statement with 13 minute Q/A
• Wednesday – 9:30
– Voting (2 to 1)
• Coding Confirmation Vote - 9:40
– Wednesday 9:50 Confirmation Role Call Vote
– 10:31 Resolution of No Votes (if necessary for 75%)
Submission
Slide 20
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
13 January 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/028r2
IEEE 802.15.3
Voting Process (pg.1 of 2)
•
•
•
•
a) for the voters, by ballot vote, to vote for one proposal or none of the above.
(Voting record will be posted following the vote.)
b) the proposal (or proposals in case of a "tie") receiving the least votes is
eliminated
c) the process continues with a vote as in "a" and "b" eliminating proposals
one by one
each time the number of proposals in the eliminating process has been reduced
to four and two a panel discussion shall be held with the remaining proposers
as panel members. The length of discussion shall be limited to 15 minutes
times the number of remaining proposals. Discussion shall be limited to
voting members and the presenters (or their designate).
Submission
Slide 21
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
13 January 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/028r2
IEEE 802.15.3
Voting Process (pg. 2 of 2)
•
•
d) when one proposal is left the voters shall vote (roll call) for the proposal or
none of the above and the proposal shall be required to achieve a 75% majority
in order to be submitted to the working group as a recommendation. If the
remaining proposal fails to achieve a 75% majority, the members who voted
"no" shall be requested to state why they voted no and what would be required
to change their vote to an affirmative vote. The proposer shall have an
opportunity to respond to the concerns of the no voters. After which a roll call
vote will be taken to approve the proposal.
e) if the last remaining proposal fails to receive 75% majority, the process shall
begin again with the proposals remaining after 50% were eliminated.
Submission
Slide 22
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian
13 January 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/028r2
Panel Process
• Total time for panel is 15 minutes * number of remaining
proposals
– Two minute position statement from each member of the panel
(optional)
– Q&A – Questions may only be asked by voting members.
•
•
•
•
FIFO queue of questions will be kept by Chair.
Only one question per position in the queue.
Questions must be stated in no more than one minute
Answers must be stated in no more than two minutes
– No motions will be considered during the panel.
Submission
Slide 23
James P. K. Gilb, Mobilian