Re: The (perceived) requirement to be an IETF Standard

["Adrian J. Hooke" <[e-mail]>]

At 08:51 AM 6/24/2002 -0400, Daniel Shell wrote:
>Also if SCPS and its family is put on the RFC standards track if give this 
>protocol some legitimacy
>with every one who is going to use it.

Dan: the SCPS variant of TCP/UDP - "TCP Tranquility" -  exists as:

a) An International Standard (ISO 15893:2000) and;
b) A US Department of Defense Military Standard (MIL-STD-2045-44000).
c) A NASA Preferred Technical Standard

We are interested in hearing from other people on this list: would putting 
Tranquility through the RFC process further increase its "legitimacy" as 
far as you are concerned? Does anyone out there feel inhibited about 
experimenting with SCPS capabilities by the current status?

>So why not?

Time and money, both of which are in short supply. What would be the return 
on investment?

///adrian

[ BTW, as Eric notes, the SCPS capabilities are not a "NASA/JPL" thing. 
They exist as full NASA Technical Standards that are approved by the NASA 
Chief Engineer (http://standards.nasa.gov/ ). That means that, unlike the 
products of NASA's Research Centers, they are the preferred standards for 
use on NASA's flight missions. They are programmatically managed by the 
Office of Space Communications within the Office of Space Flight at NASA 
Headquarters in Washington DC. ]