Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!UDEL.EDU!Mills
From: Mills@UDEL.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  mil stds vs. rfc's
Message-ID: <8812271635.aa12571@Huey.UDEL.EDU>
Date: 27 Dec 88 21:35:05 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 27

Merton,

DCA funded the effort as a task order, which was subcontracted to various
parties. The prime contractor was to formulate specific amendments to the
MIL-STD-1777 and -1778, documents (which the prime contractor in fact wrote).
but so far as I know was not to redraft the documents themselves. The
subcontractors submitted rough-draft proposals, which were then redrafted
into a report and submitted to DCA. While it is not clear in what form that
report was submitted, at least some of the proposals made it out to the
community for discussion and comment. I remember a series of amendments
to the ICMP RFC which were managed in this way. Somewhere in my 20,000-
message mail archives scattered over three TOPS-20s, several Unix systems
and a Fuzzball in a pear tree is a massive message containing the dozens
of messages contributed to this effort. In a day or two I might even be able
to excavate that treasure from the mounds of dusty archive tapes and then it
might take me much longer than that. I don't relish that chore and I suppose
the prime contractor doesn't either, especially since the knowledgable
people and bit buckets have probably since gone on to a better life.

While I am no defender of the Government contracting process (having done my
own bit in that area), I don't think the prime contractor, the subcontractors
or DCA did anything specifically wrong. I would, however, like to yet and
once again plead to the DCA protocol standards committees that information
such as this should be routinely shared with the IETF and given the widest
possible distribution.

Dave