Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!interlan.interlan.COM!solensky
From: solensky@interlan.interlan.COM (Frank Solensky)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  MIL-STD 1780 doing double duty
Message-ID: <8909141524.AA13727@interlan.interlan.com>
Date: 14 Sep 89 15:24:12 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 19

In <8909071355.AA03484@sccgate.scc.com>, Mike O'Connor writes:

>        My question is, what is the correct entry for IP?  Has MIL-STD 1777
>been replaced, possibly with a MIL-STD specification that resolves the
>problems cited in RFC963?     
>        If MIL-STD 1777 has not been replaced or modified, I have the 
>(seemingly) age-old problem of how to respond to a DoD request for an
>implementation of MIL-STD 1777.    

	There is an RFC that will be coming out shortly called "Requirements
for Internet Hosts -- Communications Layers".  A working group of the
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), chaired by Robert Braden, got together
to correct some of the errors in and inconsistancies between the different
specifications (RFC-791, MIL-STD-1777, etc.) of what IP and others protocols
{must/should/may/should not/must not} be doing to be considered "correct".
My understanding is that this document will eventually be adopted by
DoD as the standard that will be adhered to.
					-- Frank Solensky
					   Racal InterLan