Re: Do we need another protocol?

Richard A. Klein (raklein@mitre.ARPA)
Tue, 30 Sep 86 08:55:59 -0500

I'm getting tired of listening to people pontificating DoD policy.
The reason why that particular organization in the U. S. Army did not
choose the MIL-STD protocol suite (TCP/IP) is because they are not
well informed on the existance and benefits of the DoD protocol suite.
In addition, the U. S. Army organization in charge of developing
standards is not well informed and has been remiss in general with
regard to getting standards out to the rest of the Army. JTC3A's lack
of progress in developing protocol standards for tactical applications
for all of DoD has further hampered the standardization effort. But
the real crux of the matter is that WE are responsible, as
consultants, engineers, researchers, etc., for insuring the
recommended use of the DoD MIL-STDs when appropriate.

I'm currently supporting the Army's effort to "go ISO." This means
that they want a "militarized" ISO protocol suite right-a-way, and
they don't want to be bothered by an intermediate standard such as
TCP/IP (?!). Some how or the other, we will make the best effort to
direct them towards the right standards for the right times. I have
found that the most convincing arguments are demonstrations to the
sponsor of the real benefits of using TCP/IP now, ISO later, when it
is tested and proven. By the way, watching the bureaucrats yell
policy at each other has proven to us, without a doubt, that it won't
get you anywhere.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:36:58 GMT