The (perceived) requirement to be an IETF Standard

[Eric Travis <[e-mail]>]

Dan,

I read your response to Adrian (below) and I'm still struggling... 
but I'm trying to learn.


While you've been a bit cryptic (possibly because you are on 
vacation) I now think that a discussion of the perceived requirement
for IETF standardization of things for niche communities is an 
appropriate discussion for this list.

While I don't imagine there is *any* viable business case 
for CISCO to divert energy or resources to supporting any 
space-based protocols/hardware in their mainstream product 
line, should I interpret your response to Adrian to indicate:

  CISCO *only* implements protocols that are IETF standards?

  CISCO will find a business case to support space-based
  protocols if they are IETF standards?

Does your work at GRC lead you to believe that there is
a large market for space-based networking? Large enough
to sustain a working community of interest within the 
IETF?

The point of the parent thread is TCP - does CISCO make many 
end-user devices that would be relevant to this discussion?  

Are you planning on building middle-boxes - in which case the 
dynamics of the discussion changes a lot and the need for IETF 
standardization of the behavior what goes over the *private* links 
and is terminated prior to the public network becomes even less 
obvious...

For this environment, I'd imagine that any business decisions 
would *not* be based on whether a frob is an IETF Standard, 
but rather there is a sufficiently large market to recover 
development and support costs while eventually turning a profit.

You keep asserting that:

  "NASA/JPL needs to approach the IETF to make it standard"
  (there is no 'it' appropriate here, a 'them' perhaps)

My sincere question to you is: Why?

I'm not the sharpest crayon in the box, so could you please
explain to me what exactly will be gained by the communities
of interest by going through the justifiably rigorous and 
lengthy process of making *these* protocol enhancements 
IETF standards? 

They are already standards (several times over)...

Also, why might the IETF care to bother standardizing what 
is running on mostly closed/private networks?

If you can make a good case, then perhaps *we* can convince
NASA to divert some research funds to support that effort.
The money is there, but it would need to be reprogrammed
to support the effort.

I'm reluctantly up for the challenge, but I need your help 
making a convincing case to the folks that matter at NASA HQ.

The topic will keep until you return to work, but if you can
convince me that it is necessary, I'd like to pursue this within 
NASA if at all possible.

Eric

> Adrian 
> 
> CISCO is not interested in SCPS at this time. 
> NASA/JPL needs to approach the IETF to make it standard. 
> So far that has not happened. 
> 
> At 01:04 PM 6/18/2002, Adrian J. Hooke wrote: 
> >At 08:25 AM 6/18/2002 -0400, Daniel Shell wrote: 
> >>Is SCPS an IETF RFC on a standards track yet? 
> > 
> >Dan: 
> > 
> >Could you perhaps ask your question a bit more precisely? Which of the 
> >four SCPS protocols would you suggest should be launched on an IETF 
> >standards track? 
> > 
> >If you are talking about the SCPS flavor of TCP (TCP Tranquility), in what 
> >context do you ask the question? TCP running between two ground end 
> >systems over a satellite link, or TCP running from a ground end system to 
> >an end system onboard a satellite? 
> > 
> >If the latter, what would be the benefit to you of IETF standardization of 
> >TCP Tranquility? If it was on a standards track, would CISCO Systems Gobal 
> >[sic] Defense and Space Group then be interested in investing corporate 
> >funds to build a bunch of COTS products to support space missions? 
> > 
> >Best regards 
> > 
> >Adrian J. Hooke 
> >Manager, DOD-NASA Space Communications Protocol Standards (SCPS) Project 
> >NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 
> >Interplanetary Network Directorate 
> >M/S 303-400, 4800 Oak Grove Drive 
> >Pasadena, California 91109-8099, USA 
> >+1.818.354.3063 OFFICE 
> >+1.818.653.9553 MOBILE 
> >+1 818.354.6290 FAX 
> >http://www.scps.org 
> > 
> 
> Dan Shell 
> Network Architect 
> CISCO Systems 
> Gobal Defense and Space Group 
> Wireless/Mobile Networking/ Satellite 
> 216 643 2422