Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

[802SEC] Responses to received comments for the 15.4q PAR & 5C


There were 3 comments received regarding 15.4q, one comment on the PAR from Paul and two comments on the 5C from 802.11.  Responses are in blue below. The PAR has been updated (now 386r6) to reflect the corrected purpose entry, namely the purpose now shows as blank which was the originally selected option when the PAR was submitted on MyProject and a clause has been added to the 5C (now 387r6) to enhance clarity.  These are available at



802.11 comments to 802.15.4q:

5C 3a Suggests that some existing 15.4 devices can operate with coin cell batteries.  This would imply that the existing standard is sufficient for building compliant devices operating with coin cell batteries.

Q: Why do you need a new Standard?  How is it unique from the existing standard?

A: 5C 3a says the current standard cannot be used to power the majority of the existing 802.15.4 chipsets in these applications. The operative word is majority. Addressing only a small subset is missing a big market opportunity. This amendment addresses a solution enabling a far broader set of applications than is currently possible.  The clause: --in a much broader set of applications-- is being added to the end of the sentence: --This 802.15.4 PHY amendment allows the use of smaller battery form factors such as coin cell batteries.-- to enhance clarity on this point.

5C 3a seems to infer that the problem being solved is related  to pulse current, while 3b suggests the problem is average current.

Q: What is the actual problem?

A: 5C 3b says: The proposed amendment to IEEE 802.15.4 will provide a unique solution for ultra low power applications. This is the entire statement under 3b. It makes no reference to average power, nor is average power mentioned anywhere in the 5C so we are at a bit of a loss to understand the question.  Clearly average power is important in achieving long battery life so the lower the average power the better.  The primary issue with energy constrained sources, like coin cells, is their inability to deliver high peak power so that is also of primary interest here. If that can be achieved at lower average power too, so much the better.

Paul Nikolich comment on purpose:

The current purpose states:

5.4 Purpose: The standard provides for ultra low complexity, ultra low cost, ultra low power consumption, and low data rate wireless connectivity among inexpensive devices. The raw data rate is high enough (250 kb/s) to satisfy a set of applications....

Would it make sense to remove the complexity and cost parameters from the purpose to give the project some flexibility?  My concern is this, if the WG couldn't meet all three requirements, it may prevent the rapid completion of the project.  Additionally, you've sort of covered the low complexity/cost requirement by specifying "inexpensive devices" in Purpose.

Response: In the submission to MyProject, the group chose not to submit a purpose statement which is one of the MyProject options for amendments.  The purpose statement appearing in the PAR, rather than being blank, was assigned by MyProject and is apparently one of the original purpose statements. Staff has corrected the problem so the purpose statement for this amendment is now blank per the initial submission selection.


Bob Heile, Ph.D
Chairman, ZigBee Alliance
Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Personal Area Networks
Co-Chair IEEE P2030 Task Force 3 on Smartgrid Communications
11 Robert Toner Blvd
Suite 5-301
North Attleboro, MA  02763   USA
Mobile: +1-781-929-4832
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.