A1261579507cdkXR

1
Project IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless
Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title
Compromise Ad Hoc Meeting Report Date
Submitted February 25, 2004 Source John
Santhoff Company PulseLINK Address 1969
Kellogg Ave, San Diego, CA 92008
Voice760-607-0844 , FAX [phone] ,
E-Mailjsanthoff_at_pulselink.net Re Documents
04/051r2 and 04/067r1 Compromise Ad Hoc Meeting
authorization and agenda Abstract This
document provides a report to Task Group 3a from
the chair of the compromise ad hoc meeting
regarding the work of the meeting
group. Purpose To provide information to TG3a
regarding compromise discussions and specific
details of the proposed common signaling mode
(CSM). 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.
2
Background

• Moved Approved That TG3a create an Ad Hoc
  group to consider possible compromises, if any.
  The resulting report will be presented at the
  March 2004 meeting.
• Action Meetings were held February 23-25 2004.
  Minutes available in document 15-04-0086-00-003a
• This document is the Ad Hoc Chairs report of the
  meeting.

3
Common Signaling Mode (CSM) Executive Summary

• Very Simple CSM Solutions Identified
• 5 dB link margin improvement
• Bandwidth is dropped by 1/3 and data-rate is
  dropped by 1/10Result is 5 dB better link margin
  than base 110Mbps MB-OFDM rate
• Important Problem
• More than one UWB solution will exist in the
  marketplace
• CSM proactively manages co-existence
• Enables interoperability and controls
  interference
• Provides flexibility/extensibility within IEEE
  standards
• Manages Risks
• Improves the case for international regulatory
  approval
• Provides options for future growth scalability
• Provides options to meet diverse application
  needs

4
Outline

• Documents presented discussion topics
• Interoperability objectives and requirements
• MAC considerations
• PHY considerations
• Summary

5
Documents presented

• 04/078r1 Requirements supporting a common base
  mode John Barr
• 04/079r2 Requirements for a UWB Common Signaling
  Protocol Yasaman Bahreini
• 04/080r1 Compromise for UWB Interoperability
  MAC Overview Matt Wellborn
• 04/081r2 Compromise for UWB Interoperability
  PHY Overview John McCorkle
• 04/082r0 Options for a Common Signalling
  Protocol Michael McLaughlin

6
Different Compromise Discussions

• Common mode for multiple PHYs
• BPSK in MB-OFDM Band 2
• Common mode using existing MB-OFDM preamble, or
  minimal changes
• Common mode that supports a low-rate non-TG3a
  device (UWB or non-UWB)

7
A CSM Compromise Solution
Proposed Common Signaling Mode Band (500 MHz
bandwidth)
DS-UWB Low Band Pulse Shape (RRC)
3960
Frequency (MHz)
3100
5100
MB-OFDM (3-band) Theoretical Spectrum
8
Range of Application Requirements

• TG3a has uncovered a huge range of requirements
  and usage scenarios
• Very high rate, isochronous transport of
  multimedia content (HDTV, Home Theater) between
  powered and portable devices.
• Transfer of large amounts of data (video, image,
  MP3) between portable devices and PCs/media
  servers.
• Transfer of individual items between like devices
  (e.g., exchange images between group capture
  camera and those cameras carried by the group in
  the image)
• Interaction of portable devices sharing a local
  experience (multi-player gaming)
• The CSM provides a framework to facilitate future
  growth and innovation
• High data rate short range transfers vs wireless
  home theater connectivity
• A PHY selection that leaves openings for more
  efficient PHY choices will always be under attack
  by more appropriate PHYs

9
Long Term Vision

• 802.15.3a defines UWB solutions useful in a large
  number and variety of devices
• As technology improves, any 802.15.3a device can
  coexist and interoperate with all current
  (legacy) and future UWB devices
• An ecosystem for WPAN technology evolves because
  of the ubiquity of the 802.15.3a standard in
  devices (e.g. WiFi)
• 802.15.3a common base mode more easily enables
  world wide regulatory approval, where CSM manages
  one or more optional modes approved for use in
  each regulatory region

10
Objectives / Requirements / Goals

• A Mode where different classes of UWB device
  (PHYs) operating in common spectrum can
  proactively co-exist interoperate
• TG3a compromise
• MB-OFDM ? DS-UWB
• PNC does not limit peer-to-peer operations within
  CTAs
• Extensibility to other UWB PHYs
• TG3a ? non-TG3a
• Simple
• Negligible cost in terms of die-size and power
  consumption
• Enable lower cost/power implementations without
  limiting the performance of higher-end
  implementations
• Negligible impact on current proposals
• Minimum changes to DS-UWB and MB-OFDM approaches
• Mode is likely to fit into worldwide regulations

11
Current MAC Capabilities

• 15.3 TDMA behavior allows different classes of
  UWB devices to interoperate
• Once a device is assigned a timeslot, that slot
  can be used for any transmission (e.g. MB-OFDM or
  DS-UWB or future UWB PHY) the device chooses
• The basic mechanism needed to make this work is a
  common language or common signaling mode (CSM)
  that allows devices to communicate at a basic
  level that allows time slot request and
  allocations

12
15.3 MAC Support for a Compromise

• Beacon formats
• Default use of CSM for beacons in mixed piconet
• Homogenous piconets can use higher rate beacons
• Periodic use of CSM beacon to permit new devices
  to join
• Contention mechanisms for mixed piconets
• CSMA/CA, slotted aloha, RTS-CTS with CSMA
• DEV capabilities
• Add fields to identify DEV support for alternate
  waveforms
• Minimum requirements for non-TG3a devices
• Participation as DEV
• Participation as PNC

13
Overview of a CSM PHY

• It is inevitable that multiple UWB solutions will
  exist in the marketplace
• CSM manages multiple UWB solutions
• Advantages
• Interoperability minimizes market confusion
  caused by dissimilar UWB devices
• Coordinated co-existence provides higher system
  throughput better QoS than non-coordinated
  systems in mixed-device environments
• CSM provides a very low power mode for power
  sensitive devices
• Future proofing
• Multiple PHYs provide more options for diverse
  applications
• Potential support for future UWB solutions
• Mitigates regulatory uncertainties
• Disadvantages
• Slight additional complexity

14
The CSM is Consistent with goals of other UWB
trade organizations

• MBOA Mission
• To develop the best overall solution for
  ultra-wideband based products in compliance with
  worldwide regulatory requirements, to ensure
  peaceful coexistence with current and future
  spectrum users, and to provide the most benefits
  to the broadest number of end consumers.
• Ref (online) http//www.multibandofdm.org, 25
  Feb 2004.

15
Summary

• Very Simple CSM Solutions Identified
• 5 dB link margin improvement
• Bandwidth is dropped by 1/3 and data-rate is
  dropped by 1/10Result is 5 dB better link margin
  than base 110Mbps MB-OFDM rate
• Important Problem
• Inevitable that more than one UWB solution will
  exist in the marketplace
• CSM manages this fact
• Enables interoperability and controls
  interference
• Provides flexibility/extensibility within IEEE
  standards
• Manages Risks
• Improves the case for international regulatory
  approval
• Provides options for future improvements
• Provides options to meet diverse application
  needs