Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!linus!gatech!udel!burdvax!kleonard
From: kleonard@PRC.Unisys.COM (Ken Leonard --> kleonard@gvlv2@prc.unisys.com)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Life in the Swamps / Testing
Message-ID: <5564@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM>
Date: 22 Feb 88 19:04:22 GMT
References: <8802191259.AA15618@mitre-bedford.ARPA> <[SRI-NIC.ARPA]Fri,.19.Feb.88.06:21:34.PST.STJOHNS>
Organization: Unisys Defense Systems, Sec. Sys. PMO, Paoli, Pa.
Lines: 24

In article <[SRI-NIC.ARPA]Fri,.19.Feb.88.06:21:34.PST.STJOHNS> STJOHNS@SRI-NIC.ARPA writes:
>...
>more than once) is that is leaves them liable  to  a  law  suite [sic].
>...
>results, a vendor could sue and most probably win if I got up and
>said  its product didn't work.  Unfortunately, passing the formal
>testing is no guarantee of being able to interoperate.
>...

Which is why the DCA/NBS "ProtoLab NVLAP" program needs our support.  The
output from a ProtoLab test suite of a protocol implementation IS NOT JUST
a good/nogood tag;  it is a COMPLETE and TRACEABLE standard-compliance
report.  Which means that any potential user can evaluate, in light of
OWN/REAL/ACCEPTABLE/NECESSARY task to be accomplished, whether or
not to buy a particular implementation.

And, properly done, the ProtoLab results show a HECK OF A LOT about the
chances of interoperability, too.

Regardz,                                     [Engineering:  The Art of Science]
Ken Leonard
---                                                                         ---
This represents neither my employer's opinion nor my own:  It's just something
I overheard in a low-class bar down by the docks.