March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-05-0096-00-001a
Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Submission Title: [TG1a Closing Report]
Date Submitted: [15-Nov-04]
Source: [Tom Siep] Company [TMS Associates, LLC]
Address [Suite 100, ms 365, 1802 Pleasant Valley Dr, Garland, TX, USA, 75040]
Voice:[+1 972 496 0766], FAX: [+1 469 366 1480], E-Mail:[tom.siep@ieee.org]
Re: [If this is a proposed revision, cite the original document.]
Abstract: [Description of document contents.]
Purpose: [Description of what the author wants P802.15 to do with the information in the document.]
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
Tom Siep, TMS Assoicates, LLC
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-05-0096-00-001a
TG1a Closing Report
Tom Siep
TMS Associates, LLC
Chair TG1a
Submission
Slide 2
Tom Siep, TMS Assoicates, LLC
Jan 2005
doc.: IEEE 802.15-05-0096-00-001a
RevCom Comments on Resolution
• Two types of concerns were noted in the preliminary review of
the 802.15.1a sponsor ballot package.
• The first was the Ballot Resolution Committee’s (BRC’s) answer
to a technical comment lodged by a voter.
– GILB043 Comment resolution
• The second was a comment that not all editorial comments
lodged by SCC14 were accepted.
– SCC14 Comments resolutions
• FRYS007
• FRYS008
• FRYS009
Submission
Slide 3
Tom Siep, TMS Assoicates, LLC
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-05-0096-00-001a
RevCom Concern with
GILB043 Comment Resolution
• 2 RevCom members had the following comments on
GILB043
Member 1, DISAPPROVE: I am leaning toward disapprove
because the WG actually agreed with a negative balloter
that they are not the proper WG for this project. I admit
that I do not fully understand the issue involving authority
of the 802 sponsored WG. Maybe some of the RevCom
Computer Society members can shed some light on this.
Member 2, APPROVE: What is the answer to the questions
raised about the objection that the WG cannot make
changes, yet it is a revision. Is this proper?
Submission
Slide 4
Tom Siep, TMS Assoicates, LLC
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-05-0096-00-001a
Original Comment GILB043(technical)
Comment: This standard does not conform to the IEEE 802
procedure where the WG is empowered to make changes. For
this standard, the WG can only suggest changes, the Bluetooth
SIG is the only body that can authorize normative changes.
Suggested Resolution: Move this activity to a more
appropriate group, e.g., the IEEE CAG would be the correct
home for this activity. Without the right of the WG to make
changes to the draft standard, this document does not belong in
IEEE 802.
Response: We agree, but this should have been raised and
resolved when 802 agreed on the terms on which they would
create this standard. There is now a commitment which the TG
and WG must fulfill.
Submission
Slide 5
Tom Siep, TMS Assoicates, LLC
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-05-0096-00-001a
Explanation of Response
What was said
What was meant
1)
We agree,
1)
We understand that this
process is different than what
goes on in other 802 groups
2)
but this should have been
raised and resolved when 802
agreed on the terms on which
they would create this
standard.
2)
The Bluetooth SIG and the
IEEE have a contractual
relationship that defines a
different process and we have
executed this process in
creating the original 802.15.1
standard
3)
There is now a commitment
which the TG and WG must
fulfill.
3)
This ballot is a revision of the
original standard and your
comment is out of scope of the
PAR and therefore is declined.
Submission
Slide 6
Tom Siep, TMS Assoicates, LLC
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-05-0096-00-001a
Better Response to GILB043
Comment: This standard does not conform to the
IEEE 802 procedure where the WG is empowered to
make changes. For this standard, the WG can only
suggest changes, the Bluetooth SIG is the only body
that can authorize normative changes.
Response: The Ballot Resolution Committee (BRC)
disagrees with the assertions of this comment. The
PAR was very specific about the allowed scope of
change and to do other than the changes made
would have violated the PAR.
Submission
Slide 7
Tom Siep, TMS Assoicates, LLC
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-05-0096-00-001a
Scope of 802.15.1a PAR
• The scope of this project is limited to incorporating the changes
between 802-15-1-2002 (Bluetooth specification 1.1) and
Bluetooth Specification 1.2 into 802-15-1-2002.
• The scope of the original project was: To define PHY and MAC
specifications for wireless connectivity with fixed, portable and
moving devices within or entering a Personal Operating Space
(POS). A goal of the WPAN Group will be to achieve a level of
interoperability which could allow the transfer of data between a
WPAN device and an 802.11 device. A Personal Operating
Space (POS) is the space about a person or object that typically
extends up to 10 meters in all directions and envelops the
person whether stationary or in motion.
• The proposed WPAN Standard will be developed to ensure
coexistence with all 802.11 Networks.
Submission
Slide 8
Tom Siep, TMS Assoicates, LLC
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-05-0096-00-001a
RevCom Concern with
SCC14 Resolution
• It appears that some SCC14 comments
were not accepted either in whole or in
part. SCC14 must agree with the
resolution of all comments in Draft 6.
• Conditionally Approve: Contingent on
SCC14 comment satisfaction.
Submission
Slide 9
Tom Siep, TMS Assoicates, LLC
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-05-0096-00-001a
Comment FRYS007 (editorial)
•
Comment:
–
–
–
•
Resolution:
–
•
The symbol dBm is used to indicate a level logarithmically based on 1 mW. This should
be rewritten as “dB (1 mW)” for a condensed form used in tables. Within body text the
proper form of the quantity symbols are used—either “LP(re 1 mW)” or “LP/mW” and
the unit symbol then is “dB” only. If all levels of power are referenced to the milliwatt,
then that may be stated and the simpler quantity symbol LP may be used. Thus, the
options are (showing a typical value):
20 dB (1 mW) in a table
LP(re 1 mW) = 20 dB in text
LP/mW = 20 dB in text
LP = 20 dB in text with announcement that all levels are referenced to 1 mW
There would be no objection if all instances of dBm were changed to dB in this table
and a note provided to indicate that all levels are referenced to 1 mW. But since this
also occurs in some textual matter, the authors may wish to make a statement near
the front of the document, say in a definition entry for power level, and stipulate there
that all levels are referenced to 1 mW. Then, whether in text, in tables, or on charts the
simple and proper “dB” [IEEE Std 260.1; NIST SP 811, Sec. 8.7; see also footnote h to
table 6 in both NIST SP 330 and The International System of Units (BIPM)]
dBm is a commonly used expression in communications technologies. Use of
alternate forms would be confusing to the intended audience.
Reconsideration of resolution:
–
Submission
BRC stands by previous judgment
Slide 10
Tom Siep, TMS Assoicates, LLC
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-05-0096-00-001a
FRYS008 (editorial)
• Comment:
– In the first and third paragraphs, just above table 5, the unit
symbol dBi is used. I have no idea what that is or what
reference level is intended, though I have viewed many
antenna gain tables and charts as a amateur radio operator.
• Resolution:
– The expression dBi is used to define the gain of an antenna
system relative to an isotropic radiator at radio frequencies.
The symbol is an abbreviation for "decibels relative to
isotropic." and is a common term used in wireless
telecommunications.
• Reconsideration of resolution:
– BRC stands by previous judgment
Submission
Slide 11
Tom Siep, TMS Assoicates, LLC
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-05-0096-00-001a
FRYS009 (editorial)
• Comment:
– The unit symbol Mbps is used in lieu of the
correct symbol Mb/s.
• Resolution:
– Mbps is the commonly accepted form in
telecommunications.
• Reconsideration of resolution:
– BRC stands by previous judgment
Submission
Slide 12
Tom Siep, TMS Assoicates, LLC