GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc939

Network Working Group National Research Council Request for Comments: 939

                                                         February 1985
                         Executive Summary
                        of the NRC Report on
                      Transport Protocols for
                       Department of Defense
                           Data Networks

STATUS OF THIS MEMO

 This RFC is distributed for information only.  This RFC does not
 establish any policy for the DARPA research community or the DDN
 operational community.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

INTRODUCTION

 This RFC reproduces the material from the "front pages" of the
 National Research Council report resulting from a study of the DOD
 Internet Protocol (IP) and Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) in
 comparison with the ISO Internet Protocol (ISO-IP) and Transport
 Protocol level 4 (TP-4).  The point of this RFC is to make the text
 of the Executive Summary widely available in a timely way.  The order
 of presentation has been altered, and the pagination changed.
 The title of the full report is:
                      Transport Protocols for
                       Department of Defense
                           Data Networks
                Report to the Department of Defense
                and the National Bureau of Standards
       Committee on Computer-Computer Communication Protocols
 Board on Telecommunications and Computer Applications Commission on
                 Engineering and Technical Systems
                     National Research Council
                       National Academy Press
                  Washington, D.C.  February 1985

National Research Council [Page 1]

RFC 939 February 1985 Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on Protocols

                              OVERVIEW
 The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the
 Governing Board on the National Research Council, whose members are
 drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the
 National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.  The
 members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for
 their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
 This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors,
 according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee
 consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the
 National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
 The National Research Council was established by the National Academy
 of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and
 technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of
 advising the federal government.  The Council operates in accordance
 with general policies determined by the Academy under the authority
 of its congressional charter of 1863, which establishes the Academy
 as a private, nonprofit, self-governing membership corporation.  The
 Council has become the principal operating agency of both the
 National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering
 in the conduct of their services to the government, the public, and
 the scientific and engineering communities.  It is administered
 jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine.  The
 National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine were
 established in 1964 and 1970, respectively, under the charter of the
 National Academy of Sciences.
 This is a report of work supported by Contract No. DCA-83-C-0051
 between the U.S. Defense Communications Agency and the National
 Academy of Sciences, underwritten jointly by the Department of
 Defense and the National Bureau of Standards.
 Copies of the full report are available from:
    Board on Telecommunications and Computer Applications Commission
    on Engineering and Technical Systems
    National Research Council
    2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20418

National Research Council [Page 2]

RFC 939 February 1985 Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on Protocols

                              PREFACE
 This is the final report of the National Research Council Committee
 on Computer-Computer Communication Protocols.  The committee was
 established in May l983 at the request of the Department of Defense
 (DOD) and the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), Department of
 Commerce, to develop recommendations and guidelines for resolving
 differences between the two agencies on a data communications
 transport protocol standard.
 Computer-based information and transaction-processing systems are
 basic tools in modern industry and government.  Over the past several
 years there has been a growing demand to transfer and exchange
 digitized data in these systems quickly and accurately.  This demand
 for data transfer and exchange has been both among the terminals and
 computers within an organization and among those in different
 organizations.
 Rapid electronic transport of digitized data requires electronic
 communication links that tie the elements together.  These links are
 established, organized, and maintained by means of a layered series
 of procedures performing the many functions inherent in the
 communications process.  The successful movement of digitized data
 depends upon the participants using identical or compatible
 procedures, or protocols.
 The DOD and NBS have each developed and promulgated a transport
 protocol as standard.  The two protocols, however, are dissimilar and
 incompatible.  The committee was called to resolve the differences
 between these protocols.
 The committee held its first meeting in August l983 at the National
 Research Council in Washington, D.C.  Following this two-day meeting
 the committee held five more two-day meetings, a three-day meeting,
 and a one-week workshop.
 The committee was briefed by personnel from both agencies.  In
 addition, the committee heard from Jon Postel, University of Southern
 California's Information Sciences Institute; Dave Oran, Digital
 Equipment Corporation; Vinton Cerf, MCI; David Wood, The Mitre
 Corporation; Clair Miller, Honeywell, and Robert Follett, IBM,
 representing the Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturer's
 Association; and John Newman, Ultimate Corporation.  In most cases
 the briefings were followed by discussion.
 The committee wishes to thank  Philip Selvaggi of the Department of
 Defense and Robert Blanc of the NBS, Institute of Computer Sciences

National Research Council [Page 3]

RFC 939 February 1985 Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on Protocols

 and Technology, for their cooperation as their agency's liaison
 representatives to the committee.  The committee appreciates the
 contributions and support of Richard B. Marsten, Executive Director
 of the Board on Telecommunications -- Computer Applications (BOTCAP),
 and Jerome D. Rosenberg, BOTCAP Senior Staff Officer and the
 committee Study Director.  We also wish to thank Lois A. Leak for her
 expert administrative and secretarial support.

National Research Council [Page 4]

RFC 939 February 1985 Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on Protocols

                         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 Computer communication networks have become a very important part of
 military and commercial operations.  Indeed, the nation is becoming
 dependent upon their efficiency and reliability, and the recent
 proliferation of networks and their widespread use have emphasized
 the importance of developing uniform conventions, or protocols, for
 communication between computer systems.  The Department of Defense
 (DOD) and the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) have been actively
 engaged in activities related to protocol standardization.  This
 report is concerned primarily with recommendations on protocol
 standardization within the Department of Defense.
 Department of Defense's Transmission Protocol
    The DOD's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has
    been conducting and supporting research on computer networks for
    over fifteen years (1).  These efforts led to the development of
    modern packet-switched network design concepts.  Transmission
    between computers is generally accomplished by packet switching
    using strict protocols for the control and exchange of messages.
    The Advanced Research Projects Agency network (ARPANET),
    implemented in the early 1970s, provided a testing ground for
    research on communications protocols.  In 1978, after four years
    of development, the DOD promulgated versions of its Transmission
    Control Protocol (TCP) and an Internet Protocol (IP) and mandated
    their use as standards within the DOD.  TCP is now widely used and
    accepted.  These protocols meet the unique operational and
    functional requirements of the DOD, and any changes in the
    protocols are viewed with some trepidation by members of the
    department.  DOD representatives have stated that standardizing
    TCP greatly increased the momentum within the DOD toward
    establishing interoperability between networks within the DOD.
 International Standards Organization's Transport Protocol
    The NBS Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology (ICST), in
    cooperation with the DOD, many industrial firms, and the
    International Standards Organization (ISO), has developed a new
    international standard
    Transport Protocol (TP-4) and a new Internetwork Protocol (2).
    These protocols will soon be available as commercial products.
    Although in part derived from TCP, the new protocols are not
    compatible with TCP (3).  The U.S. standards organizations are

National Research Council [Page 5]

RFC 939 February 1985 Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on Protocols

    supporting TP-4 in international operations, and the Department of
    Commerce is proposing TP-4 as a Federal Information Processing
    Standard (FIPS) for use by all federal agencies.
 DOD OPERATIONAL AND TECHNICAL NEEDS
    The DOD has unique needs that could be affected by the Transport
    and Internet Protocol layers.  Although all data networks must
    have some of these capabilities, the DOD's needs for operational
    readiness, mobilization, and war-fighting capabilities are
    extreme.  These needs include the following:
       Survivability--Some networks must function, albeit at reduced
       performance, after many nodes and links have been destroyed.
       Security--Traffic patterns and data must be selectively
       protected through encryption, access control, auditing, and
       routing.
       Precedence--Systems should adjust the quality of service on the
       basis of priority of use; this includes a capability to preempt
       services in cases of very high priority.
       Robustness--The system must not fail or suffer much loss of
       capability because of unpredicted situations, unexpected loads,
       or misuse.  An international crisis is the strongest test of
       robustness, since the system must operate immediately and with
       virtually full performance when an international situation
       flares up unexpectedly.
       Availability--Elements of the system needed for operational
       readiness or fighting must be continuously available.
       Interoperability--Different elements of the Department must be
       able to "talk" to one another, often in unpredicted ways
       between parties that had not planned to interoperate.
    These operational needs reflect themselves into five technical or
    managerial needs:
       1.   Functional and operational specifications (that is, will
            the protocol designs meet the operational needs?);
       2.   Maximum interoperability;
       3.   Minimum procurement, development, and support costs;

National Research Council [Page 6]

RFC 939 February 1985 Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on Protocols

       4.   Ease of transition to new protocols; and
       5.   Manageability and responsiveness to changing DOD
            requirements.
    These are the criteria against which DOD options for using the ISO
    transport and internet protocols should be evaluated.
    Interoperability is a very important DOD need.  Ideally, DOD
    networks would permit operators at any terminal to access or be
    accessed by applications in any computer.  This would provide more
    network power for users, integration of independently developed
    systems, better use of resources, and increased survivability.  To
    increase interoperability, the Office of the Secretary of Defense
    has mandated the use of TCP for the Defense Communication System's
    Defense Data Network (DDN), unless waivers are granted.  In
    addition, the Defense Communication Agency (DCA) is establishing
    standards for three higher-level "utility" protocols for file
    transfer, terminal access, and electronic mail.  Partly as a
    result of these actions, it has become clear that there is growing
    momentum toward accepting interoperability and a recognition that
    it is an important operational need.
    It is very important, however, to recognize that functional
    interoperability is only achieved with full generality when two
    communication nodes can interoperate at all protocol levels.  For
    the DOD the relevant levels are as follows:
       1.   Internet, using IP;
       2.   Transport, using TCP;
       3.   Utility, using file, terminal, or mail protocols; and
       4.   Specific applications that use the above protocols for
            their particular purpose.
    Accordingly, if a network is developed using one transport
    protocol, it would generally not be able to interoperate
    functionally with other networks using the same transport protocol
    unless both networks were also using the higher-level utility and
    application protocols.  In evaluating whether or not to convert to
    TP-4 and in developing a transition plan, the following factors
    must be considered:
       The DOD contains numerous communities of interest whose
       principal need is to interoperate within their own members,

National Research Council [Page 7]

RFC 939 February 1985 Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on Protocols

       independently. Such communities generally have a specific,
       well-defined mission. The DOD Intelligence Information System
       (DODIIS) and the World Wide Military Command and Control System
       (WWMCCS) are examples. Interoperability is needed primarily
       between the higher layer applications programs initially unique
       to each community of interest.
       There are many different kinds of operations needed between
       communities of interest.  Examples of such operations are
       headquarters' need for access to several subordinate
       communities and the communities' need for some minimum
       functional interoperability with each other (such as mail
       exchange).
       The need for functional interoperability can arise,
       unexpectedly and urgently, at a time of crisis or when improved
       management opportunities are discovered.  Widespread
       standardization of TP-4 and higher-level protocols can readily
       help to achieve these needs.  Often, special development of
       additional applications that cost time and money will be
       necessary.
       The DOD needs functional interoperability with many important
       external agencies that are committed to ISO standards:  The
       North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), some intelligence
       and security agencies, and other parts of the federal
       government.
       The same objectives that have prompted the use of standardized
       protocols at higher-level headquarters will lead to their use
       by tactical groups in the field.
 SOME COMPARISONS
    A detailed comparison of the DOD Transmission Control Protocol and
    the ISO Transport Protocol indicates they are functionally
    equivalent and provide essentially similar services.  Because it
    is clear that a great deal of care and experience in protocol
    development have gone into generating the specifications for TP-4,
    the committee is confident that TP-4 will meet military
    requirements.
    Although there are differences between the two protocols, they do
    not compromise DOD requirements.  And, although in several areas,
    including the data transfer interface, flow control, connection
    establishment, and out-of-band, services are provided in different
    ways by the two protocols, neither seems intrinsically superior.

National Research Council [Page 8]

RFC 939 February 1985 Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on Protocols

    Thus, while existing applications may need to be modified somewhat
    if moved from TCP to TP-4, new applications can be written to use
    either protocol with a similar level of effort.
    The TCP and TP-4 protocols are sufficiently equivalent in their
    security-related properties in that there are no significant
    technical points favoring the use of one over the other.
    While TCP currently has the edge in maturity of implementation,
    TP-4 is gaining rapidly due to the worldwide support for and
    acceptance of the Open System Interconnection (OSI) international
    standards.  Experimental TCP implementations were completed in
    1974 at Stanford University and BBN Communications Corporation.
    Between 1974 and 1982 a large number of implementations were
    produced.  The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA)
    network switched to a complete use of TCP in January 1983.
    Operations have been satisfactory and its use is growing.  A
    number of TCP implementations are also in commercial use in
    various private networks.
    In contrast, TP-4 has not yet been implemented in any large
    operational system.  It has been tested experimentally, however,
    and has received endorsement by many commercial vendors worldwide.
    In addition, substantial portions of TP-4 have been demonstrated
    at the National Computer Conference in July 1984.
    The Internet Protocol (IP) part of the standards is not believed
    to be a problem.  The ISO IP is not as far along as TP-4, but it
    is much less complex.  The ISO IP, based very strongly on the DOD
    IP, became a draft international standard in April 1984.
    The rapidity of the progress in ISO and the results achieved over
    the past two years have surprised even the supporters of
    international standards. The reasons for this progress are
    twofold:  strong market demands stemming from the growing
    integration of communications and data processing and the progress
    in networking technology over the past years as the result of ARPA
    and commercial developments.
    Although the DOD networks have been a model upon which the ISO
    transport standards have been built, the rest of the world is
    adopting TP-4. Because the DOD represents a small fraction of the
    market and because the United States supports the ISO standard, it
    is not realistic to hope that TP-4 can be altered to conform with
    TCP.  This raises the question as to what action should be taken
    by the DOD with respect to the ISO standard.

National Research Council [Page 9]

RFC 939 February 1985 Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on Protocols

 SOME ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
    The DOD has a large and growing commitment in operational TCP
    networks, and this will increase by 50 to 100 percent in the next
    eighteen months.  This rate of investment will probably continue
    for the next five years for new systems and the upgrading of
    current ones.  The current Military Network (MILNET) and Movement
    Information Network (MINET) systems are expanding and will shortly
    be combined.  The Strategic Air Command Digital Information
    Network (SACDIN) and DODIIS are undergoing major upgrading.  When
    these changes are completed, there are plans to upgrade the WWMCCS
    Intercomputer Network (WIN) and to add separate SECRET and TOP
    SECRET networks.  There are plans to combine these six networks in
    the late 1980s, and they will become interoperable and multilevel
    secure using an advanced technology now under development.  If
    these plans are implemented on schedule, a delay of several years
    in moving to TP-4 would mean that the DOD networks in the late
    1980s would be virtually all TCP-based. Subsequent conversion to
    international standards would be very expensive if hastily
    attempted in order to maintain established DOD interoperability
    and gain interoperability with a large body of users.
    As the Department of Defense policy recognizes, there are
    significant advantages in using commercial vendor products if they
    meet the department's operational needs.  The major advantages are
    as follows:
       Costs to the DOD for development, production, and maintenance
       are significantly lower because (1) vendors spread the cost
       over a much larger user base, (2) commercial vendors are
       generally more efficient in their operations, and (3) vendors
       look for ways to improve their product to meet competition.
       The department generally gets more effective products because
       vendors integrate the protocol functions into their entire
       software and hardware product line.  Thus the DOD may be able
       eventually to use commercial software products that are built
       on top of, and thereby take advantage of, the transport
       protocols.
       By depending on industry to manage the development and
       maintenance of products, the department can use its scarce
       management and technical resources on activities unique to its
       mission.
    Because the costs of transport and internet protocol development
    and maintenance are so intertwined with other factors, it is

National Research Council [Page 10]

RFC 939 February 1985 Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on Protocols

    impossible to give a precise estimate of the savings that would be
    achieved by using commercial products.  Savings will vary in
    individual cases.  The marginal savings should range from 30 to 80
    percent.
 RECOMMENDATIONS
    The ISO protocols are now well specified but will not generally be
    commercially available for many months.  Nevertheless, this
    committee believes that the principles on which they are based are
    well-established, and the protocols can be made to satisfy fully
    DOD's needs.  The committee recommends that the DOD move toward
    adoption of TP-4 as costandard with TCP and toward exclusive use
    of TP-4.
    Transition to the use of the ISO standards, however, must be
    managed in a manner that will maintain DOD's operational
    capabilities and minimize risks.  The timing of the transition is,
    therefore, a major concern.
    Descriptions of two options that take this requirement into
    account follow.  A majority of the committee recommends the first
    option, while a minority favors the second.  A third option--to
    defer action--is also described but not recommended.
    Option 1
       The first option is for the DOD to immediately modify its
       current transport policy statement to specify TP-4 as a
       costandard along with TCP.  In addition, the DOD would develop
       a military specification for TP-4 that would also cover DOD
       requirements for discretionary options allowed under the NBS
       protocol specifications.  Requests for proposals (RFPs) for new
       networks or major upgrades of existing networks would specify
       TP-4 as the preferred protocol.  Contracts for TP-4 systems
       would be awarded only to contractors providing commercial
       products, except for unique cases.
       Existing networks that use TCP and new networks firmly
       committed to the use of TCP-based systems could continue to
       acquire implementations of TCP.  The DOD should carefully
       review each case, however, to see whether it would be
       advantageous to delay or modify some of these acquisitions in
       order to use commercial TP-4 products.  For each community of
       users it should be decided when it is operationally or

National Research Council [Page 11]

RFC 939 February 1985 Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on Protocols

       economically most advantageous to replace its current or
       planned systems in order to conform to ISO standards without
       excessively compromising continued operations.
       United States government test facilities would be developed to
       enable validation of TP-4 products (4).  The Department of
       Defense would either require that products be validated using
       these test facilities or that they be certified by the vendor.
       The test facilities could also be used to isolate multivendor
       protocol compatibility problems.  The existing NBS validation
       tools should be used as the base for the DOD test facilities.
       Because under this option networks based on both TCP and TP-4
       would coexist for some time, several capabilities that
       facilitate interoperability among networks would need to be
       developed.  The Department of Defense generally will not find
       them commercially available.  Examples are gateways among
       networks or specialized hosts that provide services such as
       electronic mail.  The department would need to initiate or
       modify development programs to provide these capabilities, and
       a test and demonstration network would be required.
    Option 2
       Under Option 2 the Department of Defense would immediately
       announce its intention to adopt TP-4 as a transport protocol
       costandard with TCP after a satisfactory demonstration of its
       suitability for use in military networks.  A final commitment
       would be deferred until the demonstration has been evaluated
       and TP-4 is commercially available.
       The demonstration should take at most eighteen months and
       should involve development of TP-4 implementations and their
       installation.  This option differs from Option 1 primarily in
       postponing the adoption of a TP-4 standard and, consequently,
       the issuance of RFPs based on TP-4 until successful completion
       of a demonstration.  The department, however, should proceed
       with those provisions of Option 1 that may be completed in
       parallel with the demonstration.  Early issuance of a TP-4
       military specification, development of validation procedures,
       and implementation of means for interoperability would be
       particularly important in this regard.

National Research Council [Page 12]

RFC 939 February 1985 Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on Protocols

    Option 3
       Under the third option the DOD would continue using TCP as the
       accepted transport standard and defer any decision on the use
       of TP-4 indefinitely.  The department would be expected to stay
       well informed on the development and use of the new protocol in
       the commercial and international arena and, with the National
       Bureau of Standards, work on means to transfer data between the
       two protocol systems.  Testing and evaluation of TP-4 standards
       by NBS would continue.  The DOD might eventually accommodate
       both protocol systems in an evolutionary conversion to TP-4.
    Comparison of Options
       The committee believes that all three options equally satisfy
       the functional objectives of the DOD, including matters of
       security.  It believes the two protocols are sufficiently
       similar and no significant differences in performance are to be
       expected if the chosen protocol implementation is of equal
       quality and is optimized for the given environment.
       The primary motivation for recommending Option 1 is to obtain
       the benefits of standard commercial products in the
       communication protocol area at an early date.  Benefits include
       smaller development, procurement, and support costs; more
       timely updates; and a wider product availability. By
       immediately committing to TP-4 as a costandard for new systems,
       Option 1 minimizes the number of systems that have to be
       converted eventually from TCP.  The ability to manage the
       transition is better than with Option 2 since the number of
       systems changed would be smaller and the time duration of mixed
       TCP and TP-4 operation would be shorter. Interoperability with
       external systems (NATO, government, commercial), which
       presumably will also use TP-4, would be brought about more
       quickly. Option 1 involves greater risk, however, since it
       commits to a new approach without as complete a demonstration
       of its viability.
       As with Option 1, a primary benefit of following Option 2 would
       be obtaining the use of standard commercial products.  Unit
       procurement costs probably would be lower than with Option 1
       because the commercial market for TP-4 will have expanded
       somewhat by the time DOD would begin to buy TP-4 products.
       Risk is smaller, compared to Option 1, because testing and
       demonstration of the suitability for military use will have
       preceded the commitment to the ISO protocols.  Transition and
       support costs would be higher than for Option 1, however,

National Research Council [Page 13]

RFC 939 February 1985 Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on Protocols

       because more networks and systems would already have been
       implemented with TCP.  Also this is perhaps the most difficult
       option to manage since the largest number of system conversions
       and the longest interval of mixed TCP and TP-4 operations would
       occur.  In addition, interoperability with external networks
       through standardization would be delayed.
       The principal benefit of exercising Option 3 would be the
       elimination of transition cost and the risk of faulty system
       behavior and delay.  It would allow the most rapid achievement
       of full internal interoperability among DOD systems.
       Manageability should be good because only one set of protocols
       would be in use (one with which the DOD already has much
       experience), and because the DOD would be in complete control
       of system evolution. Procurement costs for TCP systems would
       remain high compared with standard ISO protocol products,
       however, and availability of implementations for new systems
       and releases would remain limited.  External interoperability
       with non-DOD systems would be limited and inefficient.
       In summary, Option 1 provides the most rapid path toward the
       use of commercial products and interoperability with external
       systems.  Option 2 reduces the risk but involves somewhat
       greater delay and expense.  Option 3 involves the least risk
       and provides the quickest route to interoperability within the
       Defense Department at the least short-term cost.  These are,
       however, accompanied by penalties of incompatibility with NATO
       and other external systems and higher life-cycle costs.
 NOTES:
    (1)  The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) was reorganized
         and became the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
         (DARPA) in 1973.
    (2)  The ISO Transport Protocol and ISO Internetwork Protocol
         became Draft International Standards in September 1983 and
         April 1984, respectively. Commercial vendors normally
         consider Draft International Standards to be ready for
         implementation.
    (3)  Except where noted, the abbreviation TCP generally refers to
         both the DOD's Transmission Control Protocol and its Internet
         Protocol.  Similarly, the abbreviation TP-4 refers to both
         the ISO Transport Protocol class 4 and its Internetwork
         Protocol.  (Transport Protocol classes 0 to 3 are used for
         special purposes not related to those of this study.)

National Research Council [Page 14]

RFC 939 February 1985 Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on Protocols

    (4)  Validation means a systematic and thorough state-of-the-art
         testing of the products to assure that all technical
         specifications are being achieved.

National Research Council [Page 15]

RFC 939 February 1985 Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on Protocols

                    CONTENTS OF THE FULL REPORT
 PREFACE .........................................................  ix
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................  xi
 I     Introduction ...............................................  1
 II    Review of NBS and DOD Objectives ...........................  3
 III   Comparison of DOD and ISO Protocols .......................  13
 IV    Status of DOD and ISO Protocol
       Implementations and Specifications .......................   25
 V     Markets ...................................................  31
 VI    Development of Standard Commercial versus
       Special Commercial Products ...............................  39
 VII   Responsiveness of International Standards
       Process to Change .........................................  43
 VIII  Options for DOD and NBS ...................................  45
 IX    Cost Comparison of Options ...............................   47
 X     Evaluation of Options .....................................  53
 XI    Recommendations ...........................................  61

National Research Council [Page 16]

RFC 939 February 1985 Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on Protocols

        BOARD ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS -- COMPUTER APPLICATIONS
       COMMITTEE ON COMPUTER-COMPUTER COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS
 Chairman
    C. CHAPIN CUTLER, Professor of Applied Physics, Stanford
    University, Stanford, California
 Members
    HERBERT D. BENINGTON, Technical Director, System Development
    Corporation, McLean, Virginia
    DONALD L. BOYD, Director, Honeywell Corporate Computer Sciences
    Center, Honeywell Corporate Technology Center, Bloomington,
    Minnesota
    DAVID J. FARBER, Professor of Electrical Engineering and Professor
    of Computer Science, Department of Electrical Engineering,
    University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware
    LAWRENCE H. LANDWEBER, Professor, Computer Sciences Department,
    University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
    ANTHONY G. LAUCK, Manager, Distributed Systems Architecture and
    Advanced Development, Digital Equipment Corporation, Tewksbury,
    Massachusetts
    KEITH A. LUCKE, General Manager of Control Data Technical
    Standards, Control Data Corporation, Minneapolis, Minnesota
    MISCHA SCHWARTZ, Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer
    Science, Columbia University, New York, New York
    ROBERT F. STEEN, Director of Architecture, Communication Products
    Division IBM Corporation, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
    CARL A. SUNSHINE, Principal Engineer, Sytek, Incorporated, Los
    Angeles Operation, Culver City, California
    DANIEL J. FINK, (Ex-officio), President, D.J. Fink Associates,
    Inc., Arlington, Virginia
    JAMES L. FLANAGAN, (CETS LIAISON MEMBER), Head, Acoustics Research
    Department, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey

National Research Council [Page 17]

RFC 939 February 1985 Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on Protocols

 Staff
    RICHARD B. MARSTEN, Executive Director
    JEROME D. ROSENBERG, Senior Staff Officer and Study Director
    LOIS A. LEAK, Administrative Secretary

National Research Council [Page 18]

RFC 939 February 1985 Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on Protocols

          COMMISSION ON ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SYSTEMS
        BOARD ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS -- COMPUTER APPLICATIONS
 Chairman
    DANIEL J. FINK, President, D.J. Fink Associates, Inc., Arlington,
    Virginia
 Past Chairman
    BROCKWAY MCMILLAN, Vice President (Retired), Bell Laboratories,
    Sedgwick, Maine
 Members
    ARTHUR G. ANDERSON, Vice President (Retired), IBM Corporation, San
    Jose, California
    DANIEL BELL, Henry Ford II Professor of Social Sciences,
    Department of Sociology, Harvard University, Cambridge,
    Massachusetts
    HERBERT D. BENINGTON, Technical Director, System Development
    Corporation, McLean, Virginia
    ELWYN R. BERLEKAMP, Professor of Mathematics, Department of
    Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley, California
    ANTHONY J. DEMARIA, Assistant Director of Research for Electronics
    and Electro-Optics Technology, United Technologies Research
    Center, East Hartford, Connecticut
    GERALD P. DINNEEN, Vice President, Science and Technology,
    Honeywell Incorporated, Minneapolis, Minnesota
    GEORGE GERBNER, Professor and Dean, The Annenberg School of
    Communications, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
    Pennsylvania
    ANNE P. JONES, Partner, Sutherland, Asbill and Brennan,
    Washington, D.C.
    ADRIAN M. MCDONOUGH, Professor of Management and Decision Sciences
    (Retired), The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania,
    Havertown, Pennsylvania

National Research Council [Page 19]

RFC 939 February 1985 Executive Summary of the NRC Report Transport on Protocols

    WILBUR L. PRITCHARD, President, Satellite Systems Engineering,
    Inc., Bethesda, Maryland
    MICHAEL B. PURSLEY, Professor of Electrical Engineering,
    University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois
    IVAN SELIN, Chairman of the Board, American Management Systems,
    Inc., Arlington, Virginia
    MISCHA SCHWARTZ, Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer
    Science, Columbia University, New York, New York
    ERIC E. SUMNER, Vice President, Operations System and Network
    Planning, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, New Jersey
    KEITH W. UNCAPHER, Executive Director, USC-Information Sciences
    Institute Associate Dean, School of Engineering, University of
    Southern California, Marina del Rey, California
    JAMES L. FLANAGAN, (CETS LIAISON MEMBER), Head, Acoustics Research
    Department, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey
 Staff
    Richard B. Marsten, Executive Director
    Jerome D. Rosenberg, Senior Staff Officer
    Karen Laughlin, Administrative Coordinator
    Carmen A. Ruby, Administrative Assistant
    Lois A. Leak, Administrative Secretary

National Research Council [Page 20]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc939.txt · Last modified: 1992/09/23 19:44 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki