Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!mordor!sri-spam!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!MITRE.ARPA!raklein From: raklein@MITRE.ARPA (Richard A. Klein) Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Do we need another protocol? Message-ID: <8609301256.AA17280@mitre.ARPA> Date: Wed, 1-Oct-86 05:59:33 EDT Article-I.D.: mitre.8609301256.AA17280 Posted: Wed Oct 1 05:59:33 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 3-Oct-86 00:32:28 EDT References: <8609291632.AA00161@braden.isi.edu> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The MITRE Corp., Washington, D.C. Lines: 25 Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa 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. Richard