doc.: ieee 802.15-03/042r2 submission january 2003 mary duval ti and ian gifford, consultantslide 1...

January 2003

Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 2

doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

Submission

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

TG3a Down Selection Subcommitee (SC)

Down Selection Process Discussion

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

Submission

Contents

• Down Selection Subcommittee (SC) Work To Date, unfinished business next steps

• Overview of the process and timelines• Selection Process

– Evaluation– Down Selection

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

Submission

Next Steps• Committee analysis of scoring – how to organize?

– Definition of committee analysis activity to be determine by end of January meeting

– Email discussion encouraged• Review Evaluation Annex text for 02/105

– Proposed text is located in 02/471r4– Review in January

• Down selection Voting Procedure (02/465r1)– Members are encouraged to review steps 3 – 10– Suggest concall to discuss 3 – 10 to identify areas of concern (12/4

and 12/11 at 11 am CST – host?)– Formal editing of this procedure will continue in the January meeting

starting at step 3

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

Submission

SC Overview Nov02 to Jan03

• The SG3a/TG3a CFP was released 3Dec02

• The TG3a PAR was approved by NesCom/StdsBD on 11Dec02

• ConCalls held on 4Dec02 and 11Dec02 and the minutes can be found in –02/491r1

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

Submission

Session #22/FLL SC - Contributions

• -03/031r0 [03031r0P802-15_TG3a-PHY-Selection-Criteria.doc]– Annex A based on SC –02/471r4

• -03/041r0, r1 [03041r1P802-15_TG3a-Down-Selection-Voting-Procedure.doc]– Based on -02/465r1, -02/487r0

• -03/042r0 [03042r0P802-15_TG3a-Down-Selection-Process-Discussion.ppt]

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

Submission

Overview of IEEE Process

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

Submission

Call for Applications, Intentions, Proposals, and Down Selection Process

Is there a targtetableapplication(s) for standards

development?

Yes

CFA

CFI/CFP(CFI or Letter of

Intent)

No

Is there consensus for asingle proposal e.g. PHY,

and/or MAC Enhancementsfor standards development?

No

Complete Draft

Idea

Yes

Legend:CFI = Call For InterestCFA = Call For ApplicationsCFI/CFP = Call For Intent/Call For Proposals

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

Submission

The CFI/CFP Process

• The figure to the right depicts the current state of the TG3a CFP Process thinking.

• The WG requires a CFI to prepare the agenda.

• Typically a CFP runs 60-90 days and the CFI is 30 days BEFORE CFP deadline.

TG3aCFP

-03/031 AlternatePHY Selection

Criteria

-02/371r0 5CP802.15.3a-02/370r2 PAR

-03/030 AlternatePHY TechnicalRequirements

-03/041 DownSelection and

Voting Procedure

802.15.3/D16and

-01/508r1

Inside IEEE Outside IEEE

Does theproposal meet

the call?Develop & submit

Yes

No

Proposal

Yes

Documents needed for thesuccessful candidate proposal

Evaluation

DownSelection

Consensus building

More than 1proposal left?

Yes

No

Complete Draft

CFIDo you intend

to submit?

CFI

NO

Yes

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

Submission

Down Selection Procedure, 02/491r1

• After the 4Dec02 ConCall ChuckB decided to create a flow chart based on –02/465r1 (-03/041r1)

• The steps in the graphic represent paragraphs in the procedure.

One proposalleft?

75%??

75%??

Flow chart based on 02/465r104Dec2002, C. Brabenac

Notes: Step 1, 5, andparts 7 relative to

merging are combinedinto a modified step 5

[Step 2]Initial set of 1 hr

proposalpresentations/

discussions

[Step 3]Initial elimination

vote (> 25%)

[Steps 4&5]Merging /

technical changes

[Steps 6]60 minute

presentations

[Steps 7]Conduct

elimination vote (1proposal elim)

[Step 8]Conduct roll callconfirmation vote

[Step 8]"No" vote reasons

stated

[Step 8]Proposer

responds to "No"vote reasons

[Step 8]Conduct roll callconfirmation vote

[Step 9]Bring back last

3 proposals

[Step 10]Down-selection

complete

N Y

N

N

Y

Y

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

Submission

Proposed CFP Timeline• Nov02 Session #21/Kauai, HI USA

– We approved and then released the CFP on 3Dec02.• Jan03 Session #22/Ft Lauderdale, FL USA

– We are planning that the TG3a approve the docs from the SG3a.• Mar03 Session #23/Dallas, TX USA

– Proposals will be first heard in this Mar03 session.• May03 Session #24/Singapore, Singapore

– If too many proposal for the Mar03 session, this will be the overflow. – We should spend part of this session discussing proposals presented, answering technical

questions/concerns (i.e. put the diehard engineers in a room and let them verbally duke it out). – Spend time on conference calls discussing proposals to let everyone get comfortable (before and after

this session). • Jul03 Session #25/San Francisco, CA USA

– Down Selection and Voting will occur here– 1st opportunity for automatic quorum after Mar03 presentations

• Sep03 Session #26/TBA– Potential to start the drafting process - proposals for draft improvements should be entertained at this time

• Nov03 Session #27/Albuquerque, NM USA– TG3a drafting process

• ...

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

Submission

SG3a Future Planning

2003

J J A S O N D J F M A M J J DJ F M A M

The CFA was released on 11Dec01 and closed on 21Jan02. The CFI/CFP was released on3Dec02 – CFI closes 3Feb03 and CFP closes 3Mar03.

A S O N

You are here

CFP

2002

CFA

D

PAR

Draft

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

Submission

Ad Hoc Summary and Current Status

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

Submission

Ad Hoc Summary

• The ad hoc session was called to order by Ian Gifford, at 7 p.m. No minutes were taken other than the following slides.

• Attendees:– The Ad Hoc Editing Team consisted of: Jim Allen,

Steve March, Steve Turner, John Santhoff, Anuj Batra, Rick Roberts, Matt Welborn, Ian Gifford (facilitator), Len Miller, and Gregg Rasor. Thank you!

• We recessed to the Hotel Bar at 8:30 p.m.

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

Submission

Ad Hoc Status

• The Ad Hoc committee reviewed the TG3a minutes –03/012r1 and applied all the edits that were referred to the ad hoc Down Selection Subcommittee from the Task Group 3a.– Contributions:

• -03/041r2, Ad Hoc 13Jan03 edits• -03/041r3, Post Ad Hoc 14Jan03 edit

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

Submission

Ad Hoc Status (cont.)

• Open Issues List:– CFP Presentation order in Mar03?

• Pick from a hat. – accept as SOP– Panel Sessions?

• After Initial Proposals (Step 2) - accept• When 2 Proposals remain (Step 7) - accept

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

Submission


• Open Issues List:– Voting Definition, Format, Examples

• Low Hurdle Vote (Step 3) – modified to Consider/Not Consider– e.g., TGg see –03/041r5

• Elimination Vote (Step 7)– e.g., TG3 see –00/373r3 and –00/374r3

• Roll Call Vote (Step 9)– e.g., TG3 see –00/373r3 and –00/374r3

– Jim Allen edits [03041r1P802-15_TG3a-comments - JDA.doc]• Editorial - accepted

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

Submission


• 14Jan03• Open Issues List:

– RickA comments (verbal, 14Jan) - accept– Chang comments:

• Merged and non Merged present - accept– JohnB edits

• Active Proposals on Panel - accept• Prep time prior to Panel – rock n roll

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

Submission



– Reviewed –02/491r1 for consistency and acceptance

– BobH, JohnB, ChuckB comments– RickR and IanG prepared r5

• See next slide

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

Submission



– Corrected flow for Step 2.• Deleted 1st sentence moved to intro of Step 3.

– Corrected text and example in Step 3.• Changed vote to ballot to be clear.• Deleted “abstention counted” sentence.• Corrected example text and table for consistency.

– Corrected text in Step 7.• Added text to address Soo-Young Chang’s comment.

– Corrected text in Step 8.• Added text to define deliverable to WG.

– Corrected text in Step 9.• Created a stop on round 2 of confirmation.

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

Submission

Backup Slides

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

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

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

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

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

Submission

Evaluation ProcessOptions Matrix

Scor

ing

Criteria Importance LevelMandatory/

OptionalABC Rating Weighted

Values

Pass/Fail

Pugh Matrix

Rating (0-5)

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

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

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

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% NTechnical Feasibility

Manufacturability 3.3.1 A 21 9 1 31 68% 29% 3% 100% NTime 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% NScalability (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% NLocation Awareness 3.5 C 6 7 18 31 19% 23% 58% 100% N

Signal Robustness

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

Submission

Criteria Importance Level Results (cont.)



MAC Enhancements And Modifications

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



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

Payload Bit Rate 5.2.1 A 28 4 0 32 88% 13% 0% 100% NPHY-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% NLink Budget 5.5 A 18 12 1 31 58% 39% 3% 100% NSensitivity 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 FocusDelay 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% YAntenna 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

January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

Submission

Scoring Discussion• Document scoring method in Annex for inclusion in IEEE

P802.15-02/105 Alternate PHY Selection Criteria – Contribution in 02/271r4, text to be reviewed in January

• Decisions – Extent of Scoring: tabulated information (13) vs. tabulated

information with committee analysis (35) vs. abstain (1)• Definition of committee analysis activity to be determine by end of

January meeting– Criteria to Score: only most important (A’s only) vs. all criteria (no

objections)– Definition of N > 2 Rating

• How many levels desired: 3 levels (26) vs. 5 levels (23) vs. abstain (4)• Levels labeling: + / 0 / - (24) vs. a worded version (21) vs. abstain (3)


January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

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


January 2003


doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r2

Submission

Down Selection Procedure Activity

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

• Sub-committee reached consensus on items 1 & 2 (of 10) – see 02/465r1 for current text– Procedure must be set in by the end of January

meeting– Members are encouraged to review steps 3 – 10– Suggest concall to discuss 3 – 10 to identify areas of

concern (12/4 and 12/11 at 11 am CST – host?)– Formal editing of this procedure will continue in the

January meeting starting at step 3