✮ FEATURE ARTICLE Technical Standards: Foundations of the Future

Ken Krechmer n early example of a standard is the writ- COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW, ten alphabets developed by the Egyptians 2 PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA and Babylonians around 4000 BC. Thus the setting of a standard marks the start of ■ Without the cubit, the pyramids could recorded Western history. The Western alphabet continued to evolve for about not have been built. Technical standards 3000 years until the Greeks completed the are the foundation of each technological task with the addition of vowels (and the writing of the Homeric tales).3 advance; each innovation is linked by Alphabets were so desirable that many reference to prior technical standards. other, incompatible, alphabets were also Each successful innovation furthers the developed in other cultures. The creation of multiple alphabets appears to have flow of progress. Most innovations A been caused by minimal communications cause only a small ripple in that flow, between different cultures and the desire but a few bring about more profound of each culture to control its own alpha- bet. So each culture developed its own change, and are perhaps the beginnings of a whole standard alphabet, many of which survive today. new wave.1 Technical standards are a means to While the alphabet was being developed so were chart these rising waves of change. In this article, unit standards for length and volume, setting the stage for the next wave of change, the trading wave. three classes of technical standards are identified Trading, the major activity of merchants, is facilitated and the changes they influenced are described. A by the acceptance of public standards4 for unit mea- sure. Initially, different cultures created different unit fourth class of technical standards is postulated and standards. Over time, trading (a form of communica- some of its effects are predicted. tion) reduced the number of systems of weight and measures significantly. Waves of human progress, technology, and stan- dards are related and overlapping. As humans and technology do, standards follow an evolutionary path. Multiple standards are created and over time are winnowed down to the most desirable and cul- turally acceptable standards that codify the technical requirements developed during the preceding wave. Later waves build upon previous technical work by referring to the standards. Even the information wave, first described in 1980, has already evolved sufficiently to suggest further di- vision into linear and adaptive phases. Table One de- scribes the periods most relevant to the creation of new classes of technical standards. It is not meant to describe all the waves of progress that have occurred.

1 Developed as a concept by A. Toffler in The Third Wave, 1980. He describes three waves: agrarian, industrial, and information. 2 Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, 1945. 3 Rostovzeff, History of the Ancient World, Vol. 1, 1926. 4 Public standards are those that are accepted across multiple jurisdictions.

4 StandardView Vol. 4, No. 1, March/1996 ✮

Table One—The Relationship of Standards, Communications, lete (i.e., not efficient to maintain), difficult to use and Technology to the Ongoing Waves of Society (i.e., not machine-searchable), or undesirable (i.e., Waves of Trading Industrial Information Wave junk mail). The Internet is an example of a communi- Change Wave Wave Linear Adaptive cations system capable of supporting adaptive appli- New Definition of Logistics Computers Adaptive cations. Internet applications provide information technology weights and (assembly (linear processes storage, search mechanisms, and common presenta- measures line) processes) tion formats, with potentially more features to come. Fundamentally, Internet applications are adaptive to New com- Trade routes Mechanized Electronic Wireless munications transport the user: accepting of input, searchable, automatically updated, continuously expanding, selectable, and Class of Units Similarity Compatibility Etiquette changeable. standard (metrology) and The adaptive information wave is beginning with methodology adaptive applications such as agents.6 It will be im- plemented with adaptive processes for the layers of communications as well as the applications, since A New Phase of the Information Wave without open adaptive communications the applica- The adaptive phase of the information wave began tions themselves are constrained. with the completion of the U.S. government-funded As the Internet indicates, providing fully adaptive Internet during 1982–83.5 As soon as a technology applications requires near real-time communications. strong enough to create a new wave is identified, the Batch processing is definitely not adaptive. Given the powerful seek to appropriate the technology to main- bi-directional operation of adaptive communication tain or increase their power. So each wave begins processes and the change from central information with those who would control the technology and processing to a peer-to-peer or client/server environ- ends with the technology dispersed to all who would ment, it appears that a bi-directional (near duplex) use it. Now that the personal computer provides lin- communications environment is necessary as well. ear information processing to millions and IBM no These requirements for near real-time duplex com- longer dominates the field, the final phase of the lin- munications to support the adaptive information wave may impact plans to provide public asymmetri- ear information wave has arrived. The wide disper- 7 sion of personal computers thus sets the stage for the cal communications via cable or wireline (ADSL ) beginning of the adaptive information wave. services. During the linear information wave, large organiza- Splitting the information wave into linear and tions’ information systems were private. Limited infor- adaptive phases highlights the importance of adap- mation transfer took place between two or more pri- tive information and the many ways in which it dif- fers from linear information. It also demonstrates that vate systems. Like a tribal society, each linear 8 information system had its mores and customs that adaptive processes require open communications could not be challenged by the system users. This systems. lack of adaptability limited system users to rote func- Open Communications tions; unique customer problems could not be ad- Until the 1980s, almost all implementation of wide dressed rapidly. In such a constrained environment, 9 businesses were likely to suffer if competitors were area public networks was handled by regulated pub- more versatile. Currently, concepts such as lic utilities. While these utilities are theoretically pub- client/server computing and re-engineering are being lic, in practice current design, regulations, and bu- introduced to provide more adaptive information reaucracy severely limit the adaptability of such processes. networks. The privatization of international public Today’s First World societies are awash in linear in- telephone utilities (British Telecom in 1984, DBT formation: TV, cable, periodicals, radio, movies, mail, Telekom (Germany) starting in 1989) is an indication newspapers, and books. Most of these media were of the societal trend toward opening public networks. created for entertainment and are not appropriate for This opening is seen as fostering competition and information processing. They rapidly become obso- also requires standard interfaces that support open communications. “Open communications” in this article denotes “freely available to connect to.” It also connotes a 5 Period of transition from NCP (Network Control Protocol) to TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) is used to indicate the comple- flexibility or independence of connection. To achieve tion of the Internet. such flexibility, interfaces need to be adaptable, as 6 Active distributed network applications such as those created by General any large communications system mutates over time. Magic’s Telescript. 7 Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line supporting up to 6.144 Mbit/s to the user Mutation of communications systems is most often and up to 640 kbit/s to the network. caused by new application requirements, but also oc- 8 Open communications is a broader term than open systems from Open curs through error and because of increasing needs Systems Interconnect (X.200/ISO 7498). 9 Formally termed Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) prior to 1984 and for compatibility with other systems. An example is General Switched Telephone Network (GSTN) after 1984. the change evidenced after the Carterphone deci-

StandardView Vol. 4, No. 1, March/1996 5 ✮

The wide dispersion of [PCs] sets the stage for . . . the adaptive information wave.

sion10 in 1969. Previously only a few different tele- ability of a proprietary modem (such as Telebit multi- phones from the Bell System could attach to the net- carrier) to also work as a V.32 modem is adaptability. work. Now the U.S. public telephone network con- Adaptability maintains the flexibility necessary for nects to an amazing array of telephones, PBXs, open communications. computers, fax machines, answering machines, cellu- The transition from linear processes to adaptive lar phones, and cordless phones. Another example is processes in communications systems requires ever- the Internet, which allows flexibility of function more complex negotiation. Adaptive processes at above the OSI transport layer. The World Wide Web each layer of the OSI model support more potential and an expanding but compatible range of Web ap- variability. The most dramatic case is when the physi- plications are the result. cal layer is wireless; then the range of adaption possi- Adaptive communications processes are OSI-layer ble is not constrained by any physical interface. In processes that may change operation, based on the wireless systems, a new technology called “software 12 information or control signals returned. The differ- radios” will make possible wireless communications ence between adaptive processes and linear process- systems that can access multiple wireless frequency es is feedback. Feedback is too powerful a concept bands and modulations. This technology, and the as- to treat simply as an aspect of processing. In a com- sociated negotiation, will do much to overcome the munications system the use of feedback between re- log-jam of technologies being proposed for wireless mote ends to initialize a process is termed “negotia- personal communications services. tion.” The ability of a user/system to access usenet, In the linear information wave, the telephone sys- ftp, or www on the Internet is a form of negotiation. tem was run as a single public utility and did not The ability of two remote fax machines to select data provide open communications; the telephones con- rate and page format is another form of negotiation. nected to the ends of the network were certainly not Successively more complex negotiation (i.e., feed- adaptive in any way. IBM computers, with IBM soft- back) becomes necessary in a rapidly changing open ware, connected by IBM-specified protocols to IBM public communications system. terminals also did not offer open communications, Fundamentally, public communications standards and offered only limited adaptability at the central are necessary for openness.11 However, it is often dif- host location. Now the widespread deployment of ficult to achieve a single communications standard. personal (i.e., changeable by user) computers, high- When a standard becomes ubiquitous, as did the level programming languages, and the beginnings of 13 telephone RJ-11 jack, for example, it offers flexibility adaptive applications (e.g., HotJava ) support the of use because it is ubiquitous. When a communica- adaptive information wave. tions standard is being developed, standards only The adaptive information wave is carried on the limit the designers’ flexibility. So different systems de- rising tide of open adaptive processes in communica- signers, for reasons Darwin would appreciate, create tions, often wireless, with other open adaptive different implementations of the same process. Over processes. The passage of information between non- time and with guidance from market forces, stan- adaptive or non-independent processes is linear in- dards committees try to coalesce these multiple ver- formation transfer. The linear information wave was a sions into one standard, with varying success. significant step forward, but it is now being succeed- Adaptability can also help minimize the problems ed by the adaptive information wave. caused by the creation of multiple incompatible im- plementations. With adaptability and negotiation a Classes of Technical Standards communications system can operate according to one Until the information wave began, there was no need implementation and then change, in response to a re- to delineate technical standards into multiple classes. quest, and operate according to a different imple- All technical standards basically defined similarity of mentation. The ability of a V.34 data modem to also entity or process. During the information wave, tech- work as a V.32bis data modem is adaptability. The nical standards designed specifically for compatibility have emerged. Now the requirements of new waves of society seem to be expanding sufficiently14 to sug- gest the need to define a new grouping of standards. 10 The FCC in 1969 found that the Carterfone electrical connection to the tele- phone network (for wireless phone calls) did not adversely affect the telephone As Table One indicates, the term “standards” has system. This decision became the basis of direct connect, FCC Part 68, connection been used for a range of different technical require- to the public telephone network. 11 “A Five Segment Model for Standardization,” by Carl Cargill, published in ments. The initial standards for weights and measures Standards Policy for Information Infrastructure, 1995. in early Western civilization were necessary to sup- 12 A concept described in IEEE Communications Magazine, May 1995. port trading. Later the industrial wave expanded the 13 Internet application developed by Sun Microsystems. 14 “Recommendations for the Global Information Highway: A Matter of requirements for similarity standards such as wheel Standards,” by Ken Krechmer, 1995. sizes. During the industrial wave, early physical com-

6 StandardView Vol. 4, No. 1, March/1996 ✮

Table Two—The Four Classes of Standards (3) Compatibility standards define the interface be- Classes of tween two or more mating elements that are Standards Examples Purpose Effect compatible rather than similar, e.g., a plug and (1) Units Meter length, ounce Sameness Replication a socket, a transmitter and a receiver. The pri- (metrology) mary reference is to a definition of the allowed (2) Similarity AS15 metal gauges, Repeatability Compatible mating entity. Modem standards (V.32, V.34) methodology stds, with like are examples of compatibility standards: they character sets, X.3 PAD define most aspects of the transmitter and a (3) Compatibility Group 3 facsimile, Interworking Transmitter few aspects of the receiver to ensure compati- V.32 & V.34 modems, compatible bility. Compatibility standards define the differ- X.25 interface, NIUF with receiver ence allowed between the plug and the socket, ISDN implementation agreements, wireless the transmitter and the receiver, the protocol air interfaces generator and the protocol receiver. The OSI (4) Etiquette Aloha protocol, CSMA/ Expandability Negotiate model (X.200) defines the mating layers neces- CD, modem handshakes, the sary to pass information between computers WINForum spectrum variation (adaptive or linear). OSI layer protocols may etiquette be defined by similarity standards, but each protocol likely has options. The effect of such options has been to create the need for com- patibility standards also emerged for train-rail spac- patibility standards, called “interfaces,” “tem- ing, nut-to-bolt fit, etc. While written as similarity plates,” or “implementation agreements,” which standards, i.e., no separate interface standard was define the allowed range of options necessary created, these standards were the seeds of later com- for compatibility. The X.25 is an example of an patibility standards. OSI-based compatibility standard between a The linear information wave required virtual simi- DTE and a DCE (X.3 Packet Assembler Disas- larity standards for character sets, protocols such as sembler similarity standard) connected to a HDLC, operating systems, applications and data- packet data network. bases. During the later stages of the linear informa- Some of the difficulties experienced in deploy- tion wave, more complex public communications ing ISDN came to pass because the initial stan- systems using modems, facsimile, and ISDN dramati- dards that defined ISDN were similarity stan- cally expanded process complexity and the need for dards rather than compatibility standards. compatibility standards. Now in the adaptive informa- Later, when the National ISDN User Forum tion wave, many kinds of wireless services, public (NIUF) developed compatibility standards (im- and private, are creating the need for additional com- plementation agreements), usage began to ex- patibility standards. This expansion in communica- pand. A counter-example is the rapid accep- tions compatibility standards gives rise to a need to tance of Advanced Mobile Phone System implement etiquette standards. (AMPS) cellular telephone standards in North Table One proposes four classes of standards; America. AMPS standards included compatibil- Table Two delineates these classes. Note that each ity standards (air interfaces) in the initial stan- class of standards is related to the previous one, and dards work. may reference it, but defines a range of variation that (4) Etiquette standards define the initial negotia- was not previously delineated separately. tion between independent communicating (1) Unit standards define measurable physical processes for the purpose of establishing com- qualities, e.g., meter, mile, liter, gallon, gram, munications.16 The primary reference is to a pound. This allows different physical entities to definition of the variability of negotiation al- be compared to a single reference. lowed. Such a definition may be open-ended (2) Similarity standards define (possibly with the to support future compatibility. An etiquette use of unit standards) the variation permitted does not terminate an OSI layer, it only negoti- within a set of similar entities, e.g., thread ates aspects of a layer’s function. This usually gauge, DOS operating system, paint color. In means that the function that performs the eti- similarity standards, the primary reference is a quette must be associated with the process that definition of the entity to which similarity is terminates the related OSI layer (otherwise maintained. Unit standards, if employed, are a problems may occur). Etiquettes are being secondary reference. used to support physical node change (Ether- net CSMA/CD), backward compatibility (V.32, V.22bis, V.22 handshaking) and wireless access 15 American Standard. (WINForum spectrum etiquette). In these 16 A good example of a human communications etiquette is “hello.” It was cases, the value of the etiquette is its ability to Thomas Edison who suggested to Alexander Graham Bell that the term “hallo”, used to hail a ferryman, be used by the answering party to indicate that they had negotiate variable aspects of the physical layer answered the telephone. It also indicates the language spoken. process.

StandardView Vol. 4, No. 1, March/1996 7 ✮

Summary and will operate over near real-time wireless commu- Initially, standards defined physical things. Then they nications. The linear processing wave created a tribal evolved in support of the industrial wave to define information society. The adaptive information wave the physical relationship between things. Later, stan- will be more like the ferment of a modern society. dards used for information transfer in the information Considerable freedom will be possible and consider- wave defined the virtual relationship between things able responsibility will be necessary. In such environ- (a radio transmitter and a radio receiver). More re- ments, future innovations and the progress they fos- cently, the opening of public wide-area communica- ter will flourish even more. sv tions systems has engendered the need for interoper- ations across an ever-expanding range of communications networks and equipment. This cre- Permission to make digital/hard copy of all or part of this material without fee is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit or commer- ates the need for etiquette standards. cial advantage, the ACM copyright/server notice, the title of the publication, and its From cubit to CSMA/CD, the creation of standards date appear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of ACM. To copy makes possible new waves of change. The next wave otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. is emerging: the adaptive information wave. It is being carried forward by open adaptive processes © 1996 ACM 1067-9936/96/-0300-004 $3.50

8 StandardView Vol. 4, No. 1, March/1996