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

1. Project: IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Compromise Proposal] Date Submitted: [12Sept2004] Source: [John Barr] Company [Motorola] Address [1303 E. Golf Road, Schuamburg, IL 60196] Voice:[+1 847 576-8706], FAX: [+1 847 576-6758], E-Mail:[John.Barr@Motorola.com] Re: [7September2004 Email from 802.15.3a Task Group Chair] Abstract: [Proposal for a compromise solution for 802.15.3a] Purpose: [Provide proposal to conclude the current 802.15.3a down selection process and proceed with the drafting of an acceptable standard.] Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE 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 802.15. Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

2. Compromise Proposal • The Merger #2 Team has repeatedly suggested that a compromise would benefit the 802.15.3a process. • The Common Signaling Mode (CSM) was suggested as a result of an 802.15.3a ad hoc meeting in February. • The definition of a BM plus the option to use MB-OFDM or DS-UWB (or both) to meet 110 Mbps requirements is proposed Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

3. Essential Compromise Definition • One mode defined as mandatory in all 802.15.3a standard devices: • Minimum data rate of 9.2 Mbps • Maps onto spectrum plans of both MB-OFDM and DS-UWB • Minimizes additional complexity of current MB-OFDM and DS-UWB proposals • One additional mode selected from MB_OFDM or DS-UWB to meet minimum PAR requirements: • 110 Mbps at 10m • Higher data rates are optional • Default mode is BM for beacons, PNC commands, and broadcast • Native mode allows MB-OFDM or DS-UWB to be used for beacons, PNC commands and broadcast • pseudo BM beacon sent every N beacons • CAP or CTA for BM association at least every N beacons Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

4. Device Types for the BM Compromise Upper layers • Three classes of devices • Device with BM + MB-OFDM • Device with BM + DS-UWB • Device with BM + DS-UWB + MB-OFDM 802.15.3 MAC MB-OFDM BM Upper layers Upper layers Upper layers 802.15.3 MAC 802.15.3 MAC 802.15.3 MAC DS-UWB MB-OFDM BM CSM BM MB-OFDM DS-UWB Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

5. MB-OFDM & DS-UWB Signal Spectrum with BM Compromise Solution MB-OFDM (3-band) Theoretical Spectrum Relative PSD (dB) Proposed Base Mode Band (500 MHz bandwidth) DS-UWB Low Band Pulse Shape (RRC) 0 -3 -20 3432 3960 4488 Frequency (MHz) 3100 5100 FCC Mask Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

6. Three Types of 802.15.3a Piconet Operation • “BM piconet” • All beacons & commands passed in BM-9.2 Mbps • PNC requires only baseline BM modes be implemented • DEV can use BM or high rate modes in assigned CTAs • “MB-OFDM piconet” • Many (or all) members are MB-OFDM capable (required for PNC) • MB-OFDM beacons + 1-in-N BM beacons • “DS-UWB piconet” • Many (or all) members are DS-UWB capable (required for PNC) • DS-UWB beacons + 1-in-N BM beacons Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

7. 802.15.3a Piconet Types • All piconets enable association by all 15.3a devices • BM-only, (DS-UWB+BM) or (MB-OFDM+BM) • “BM Piconet” supports all classes of devices in an equivalent manner • Higher performance modes (DS-UWB or MB-OFMD) in CTAs • Other piconets can be “optimized” to support either MB-OFDM or DS-UWB operations • Non-native DEVs might have slightly lower performance • Slightly higher overhead when BM beacons are used • Longer association times (depends on beaconing parameters) Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

8. Example “MB-OFDM Piconet” • Uses MB-OFDM for beaconing and control • No performance impact except occasional BM beacon (transmitted only1-in-N superframes) • MB-OFDM devices can be implemented with highly “sub-optimal” BM receivers • Performance of BM implementation does not impact MB-OFDM beacons or PNC or DEV operating ranges • All devices can still transmit “high quality” BM • BM receiver complexity can be essentially zero – no rake or equalizer required to be compliant • “One finger rake” can make symbol decision on ADC values • BM receiver performance only limits ‘Interoperability range” Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

9. Superframe Duration # 1 MB-OFDM Beacon CTA CTA CTA 2 MB-OFDM Beacon CTA CTA CTA … MB-OFDM Beacon BM Beacon + Assoc. CAP CTA N N+1 MB-OFDM Beacon CTA CTA CTA Beacons for an “MB-OFDM Piconet” • MB-OFDM Capable PNC transmits all beacons using MB-OFDM • One-in-N superframes the PNC also transmits BM beacon to advertise interoperability & support non-MB-OFDM DEVs • Performance controlled / impact limited by 1-in-N BM beacon Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

10. Compromise Proposal Conclusions • Allows extremely simple BM implementations for all DEVs • BM implementation complexity chosen by DEV manufacturer • “Native modes” for piconets allow uncompromised performance • Doesn’t depend on BM performance for robust piconet performance • Sub-optimal BM only impacts performance during “interoperation” • Baseline BM piconet operation • BM transmissions for interoperation in DS-UWB/MB-OFDM piconets • The task group needs to determine how to define the Base Mode Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola