Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!uunet!usenix!jsq From: jsh@usenix.org (Jeffrey S. Haemer) Newsgroups: comp.std.unix Subject: Standards Update, NIST Shell-and-Tools FIPS Workshop Message-ID: <558@usenix.ORG> Date: 28 Sep 90 18:23:58 GMT Sender: jsq@usenix.ORG Reply-To: std-unix@uunet.uu.net Organization: USENIX Standards Watchdog Committee Lines: 155 Approved: jsq@usenix.org (Moderator, John Quarterman) X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net Submitted-by: jsh@usenix.org (Jeffrey S. Haemer) An Update on UNIX1-Related Standards Activities September 1990 USENIX Standards Watchdog Committee Jeffrey S. Haemer, Report Editor NIST Shell-and-Tools FIPS Workshop Donald Lewine reports on the September 6, 1990 meeting in Gaithersburg, MD: The Federal Government publishes Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) for use in buying and using computers. One set of FIPS deal with systems with ``POSIX-like interfaces.'' The government will purchase about $17 Billion worth of POSIX systems in FY91. Standards let the government avoid vendor-specific requirements like UNIX or SVID. The theory is that the larger the number of vendors that can meet the specification the lower the cost to the taxpayer. Whether that's true or not, using standards makes it harder to protest a purchase decision. On September 6, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) held a workshop to gather input from industry and federal agencies on the wisdom of adopting Draft 9 of the IEEE Standard for POSIX Shell and Utility Application Interface (P1003.2) as a Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS). The meeting was attended by about a dozen system vendors and about half that many Federal agencies. Roger Martin of NIST opened the meeting with what was to be a three- minute introduction. NIST's agenda was to collect specific comments on the FIPS as printed on Page 23959 of the Federal Register. The vendors' agenda was to get NIST to give up the idea of adopting a FIPS until after the IEEE standard is final. Not surprisingly, given this clash, Roger's opening remarks ran over by a factor of 20. Here is NIST's case for adopting a FIPS based on POSIX.2/D9: 1. The federal government is going to purchase about $17 billion worth of systems with ``POSIX-like interfaces.'' NIST wants to give the agencies as must help as possible. Draft 9 is a good enough standard to serve this purpose. __________ 1. UNIXTM is a Registered Trademark of UNIX System Laboratories in the United States and other countries. September 1990 Standards Update NIST Shell-and-Tools FIPS Workshop - 2 - 2. It takes about a year to get a FIPS adopted. If POSIX.2 is not approved until mid-1991, a FIPS based on draft 9 will have a significant lifespan.2 3. If NIST were to publish a FIPS, it would accelerate the production of the P1003.2 standard. (just as FIPS 151 accelerated IEEE 1003.1-1988). 4. No agency is going to be stupid enough to demand draft 9 if a vendor can supply a system conforming to a later draft or to the final standard, so the FIPS will do no harm. (This was hotly debated.) After that introduction, and before the next attack on Roger Martin, Sheila Frankel and Rick Kuhn described the technical content of the FIPS. Basically, the idea is to adopt draft 9 minus the parts that might change. There are about 25 items that may change. NIST is looking for specific technical comments by October 15. Send comments to . Comments like, ``I don't know if _____ is technically correct but I like the general idea,'' are welcome for specific items. Comments from government users are especially welcome. Comments from industry on the general wisdom of adopting a FIPS prior to the final IEEE approval of a standard will not be very welcome. Roger Martin came back for another round of target practice. He went over the general policy of NIST, which is to adopt standards from outside and at the highest possible level. The levels are, highest to lowest: - International Standards - National Standards - Draft Standards - de facto Standards __________ 2. Just because the IEEE approves a standard does not make it a Federal Information Processing Standard. The feds still have to go through the entire legal process of publishing it in the Federal Register, collecting comments, writing responses to those comments, and getting it signed by the Secretary of Commerce. This process takes about a year even for a null standard. September 1990 Standards Update NIST Shell-and-Tools FIPS Workshop - 3 - NIST could be convinced to change from POSIX.2/D9 to POSIX.2/D10. Here are the factors it will consider: 1. How much delay is introduced (Three months may be OK. One year is unacceptable.) 2. Is Draft 10 that much better than Draft 9? Is this just a delaying action? Shane McCarron, former Watchdog Report Editor (now of UNIX International), made a great speech pointing out how much wasted effort would occur if every vendor had to rush out and implement POSIX.2/D9. The NIST people seemed shocked at how different POSIX.2/D9 is from existing practice. [Editor: See Randall Howard's POSIX.2 report for some examples of just how different Draft 9 is from Drafts 8 and 10.] Nevertheless, the argument seemed to fall on deaf ears, because NIST claimed that a promise to meet the FIPS should be good enough and everyone can still wait for AT&T USL to write the code. It was pointed out that Congress did not allocate enough funding for NIST to do much testing for POSIX.2 conformance. This means that vendors will have to ``self certify'' and coverage may vary. After some discussion this item was placed into the ``write your representative'' category, because only Congress can allocate the money. NIST pointed out that they are under a great deal of pressure to ``advise'' federal agencies who want to move to open systems. A large percentage of RFPs for POSIX-like systems will be coming from groups who know nothing about such systems. Vendors were worried that this ``advice'' would end up in court cases and be read by judges as ``regulations.'' In my opinion, NIST is going to go ahead and publish a flawed FIPS in the belief that it will drive the IEEE to pick up the pace of POSIX. The Government has a burning need for a standard, they find it politically unacceptable to use UNIX System V as that standard, and they strongly prefer action over waiting for the IEEE. September 1990 Standards Update NIST Shell-and-Tools FIPS Workshop Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 146