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

FW: Summary of IEEE 802 and IEEE ISTO Discussions


Jim Carlo( Cellular:1-214-693-1776 Voice&Fax:1-214-853-5274
TI Fellow, Networking Standards at Texas Instruments
Chair, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 Telecom and Info Exchange Between Systems
Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of Jim Carlo
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 9:31 AM
Subject: Summary of IEEE 802 and IEEE ISTO Discussions

A number of you have seen partial information regarding the IEEE-ISTO and
IEEE 802 discussions. I am writing this note to try and clarify this
information and also to share with you my viewpoints.

1) March-2000 IEEE Standards Board approved an IEEE 802.16.3 PAR (the result
of an IEEE 802.16 Study Group formed in November-1999), focussed on
Broadband Wireless Access (Fixed Point Wireless). This standard will specify
the physical layer and media access control layer of the air interface of
interoperable fixed point-to-multipoint broadband wireless access systems.

2) 11July-2000 IEEE-ISTO announced the sponsorship of a new Broadband
Wireless Internet Forum (BWIF) created to drive the adoption of a single,
unified broadband wireless access industry standard based on Vector
Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (VOFDM) technology.  BWIF members
agree to cross-license to other BWIF members, the technologies required to
implement the standard on a worldwide, royalty-free basis.

3) 15July-2000 IEEE-802 issued a Position Statement that noted the selection
by the IEEE-ISTO of a project of similar scope as the IEEE 802.16.3 project
and the use of the word "Standard" with the ISTO project that can confuse
the marketplace on which IEEE entity is doing what to whom. The IEEE
Computer Society Standards Activity Board supported the IEEE 802 position

4) July/Aug 2000 After several calls between myself, Don Loughry, Dan
Senese, Judy Gorman, Andy Salem, Peter Lefkin, clarification of the IEEE 802
position and the IEEE-ISTO policy-and-procedures were discussed. I believe
all parties are coming to understand the issues.

5) Aug 2000 Marco Migliaro (chair of the IEEE-ISTO BOD) sent a letter
requesting a meeting between the IEEE 802, BWIF, and ISTO to see if their
could be some clarifying discussions on the roles of each party. This letter
also affirmed the ISTO viewpoint that their actions were appropriate.

7) Aug 2000 Jim Carlo responded to the ISTO statement. It is my belief that
the ISTO actions were not in the best interest of the "Institute".  I also
noted that IEEE 802 did not have an issue with BWIF (IEEE 802 works in
parallel with many consortia), but with the IEEE-ISTO process.


A) The IEEE-ISTO is intentionally set up to be an independent entity.
None-the-less I have concerns that there appears to be little due process or
coordination in relation to the IEEE Standards Board activities for
selection of projects. I would like to see some type of guidelines in the
IEEE-ISTO policies that ensures better coordination between IEEE-ISTO and
the IEEE-SA approved projects.

B) The choice of the word "Standard" for IEEE-ISTO projects. While most
consortia use the word "specification", the use of the words "IEEE and
Standard" for ISTO projects will lead to confusion in the marketplace and
weaken the stature of the name "IEEE Standard" for the consensus IEEE-SA
Standards Board projects.

Jim Carlo( Cellular:1-214-693-1776 Voice&Fax:1-214-853-5274
TI Fellow, Networking Standards at Texas Instruments
Vice Chair, IEEE-SA Standards Board
Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee