Doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r0 Submission November 2002 Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford,...
12
November 2002 Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Co nsultant Slide 2 doc.: IEEE 802.15- 02/477r0 Submiss ion IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) SG3a Down Selection Subcommittee Closing Report
-
Upload
dwight-davis -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
description
doc.: IEEE /477r0 Submission November 2002 Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 3 Contents Down Selection Decision Summary Scoring Discussion
Transcript of Doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r0 Submission November 2002 Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford,...
November 2002
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 2
doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r0
Submission
IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
SG3a Down Selection Subcommittee Closing Report
November 2002
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 3
doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r0
Submission
Contents
• Down Selection Decision Summary• Scoring Discussion
November 2002
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 4
doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r0
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
November 2002
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 5
doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r0
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
November 2002
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 6
doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r0
Submission
Evaluation ProcessOptions Matrix
Scor
ing
Criteria Importance LevelMandatory/
OptionalABC Rating Weighted
Values
Pass/Fail
Pugh Matrix
Rating (0-5)
November 2002
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 7
doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r0
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
November 2002
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 8
doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r0
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
November 2002
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 9
doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r0
Submission
Criteria Importance Level Results (cont.)
CRITERIA REF.IMPORTANCE
LEVEL A B C T A% B% C% T% Discuss Possible Reasons
MAC Enhancements And Modifications
4.1. C4 8 17 29 14% 28% 59% 100% N
CRITERIA REF.IMPORTANCE
LEVEL A B C T A% B% C% T% Discuss Possible Reasons
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
November 2002
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 10
doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r0
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
Red = Winner straw poll
November 2002
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 11
doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r0
Submission
Down Selection Procedure Activity
• Ad-Hoc group met Tuesday evening to develop proposed text for sub-committee
• Sub-committee reviewed on Thursday, just prior to this presentation (update in minutes of this session)
November 2002
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 12
doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r0
Submission
Scoring Discussion• Document scoring method in Annex for inclusion in IEEE
P802.15-02/105 Alternate PHY Selection Criteria • Next Decisions
– Extent of Scoring: tabulated information vs. tabulated information with committee analysis
– Criteria to Score: only most important (A’s only) vs. all criteria– Definition of N > 2 Rating
• ++ / + / 0 / - / --• + / 0 / -• Unacceptable / Acceptable / Superior
November 2002
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 13
doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r0
Submission
Thank you to everyone for driving towards solid decisions!!!!
