Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!VENERA.ISI.EDU!braden
From: braden@VENERA.ISI.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  mil stds vs. rfc's
Message-ID: <8812261944.AA00195@braden.isi.edu>
Date: 26 Dec 88 19:44:09 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 27


	
	In article <8812211742.AA04654@braden.isi.edu> braden@VENERA.ISI.EDU writes:
	>Unfortunately, the
	>DoD has chosen not to correct or update the MilStd's for a long time.
	
	       Well, actually, DCA did fund an update of the TCP MIL-STD in
	1985, but the contractor doing the work (whom I will not name) spent
	all the money and didn't finish the job.  This discouraged further
	efforts in that direction.
	
						John Nagle
	
John,

From my experience, I suspect that what this proves is that one cannot
procure intellectual effort through the same administrative machinery
that one uses to buy, say, tank radios, and have any reasonable hope for
success.  I claim that the design and engineering of protocols is still
intellectual effort, and it requires the large-scale collaboration of the
entire technical community of the Internet. I therefore suspect it was
the process, not the vendor, that was broken in the DCA protocol efforts.

Bob Braden