Subject: RE: [Ieprep] problem context

From: "Choi, Don" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:22:47 -0500

Bill,

It is not exactly clear who are "we" "other people" and "they" in your
email. Assuming "we" are DoD, and "other people" and "they" are public, I do
not see why public has to buy what we want. I fail to see what we have to
buy has anything to do with what public has to buy. Industry builds and
sells more than one box. And I do not see "our (DoD) exact specifications".
We want IETF standards, not DoD specifications.

It may be possible that some parts of the industry where they have similar
requirements choose to buy products and services based on the IETF standards
that support DoD requirements. But this would be totally voluntary.

Don

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 12:31 PM
To: Choi, Don
Cc: 'RJ Atkinson'; ieprep; Scott Bradner
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] problem context

      On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Choi, Don wrote:
    > It has been a policy of the current U.S. administration and the
previous
    > administration to use products and services based on commercial
standards,
    > not based on military standards.
    > We (DISA) think that IETF is the place to develop these standards.

Do you really not see the contradiction here?  "We want to buy an
off-the-shelf solution that has shared fate with what other people want.
Therefore you must redesign your product to meet our exact
specifications and convince everyone else to buy something other than
what they want?"

                                -Bill

_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

---

From: Bill Woodcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:22:49 -0800 (PST)

On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Choi, Don wrote:
    > I fail to see what we have to buy has anything to do with what
    > public has to buy.

Forgive me if I'm drawing an insupportable conclusion, but it's always
been my assumption that when the government talked about preferring
off-the-shelf solutions to ones custom-tailored for it at higher cost, the
intent was to buy _off-the-shelf solutions_ (what the public buys) rather
than ones _custom-tailored for it at higher cost_ (what the military
prefers to buy).  The two principal benefits being greater practicality
due to greater shared fate with those who pay most of the money, and a
lowered cost of operation.

    > We want IETF standards, not DoD specifications.

We've got a plethora to choose from.  There's certainly no need for any
more in this area, particularly in advance of a needs assessment.

                                -Bill

---

From: "Barry Raveendran Greene" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:50:18 -0800

[Pardon me for being behind, but the volume of "stuff" on this alias is a
bit overwhelming.]

"We want IETF standards, not DoD specifications."

Keep in mind - an IETF "standard" is something that has been peer reviewed,
coded, and used.  That last part "used" is one of the major things that make
the IETF world different from the rest of the standards communities.  Taking
a document all the way to an official  "Internet Standard" is hard.

So, set you expectations.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Choi,
Don
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 10:23 AM
To: 'Bill Woodcock'
Cc: ieprep
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] problem context

Bill,

Don

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 12:31 PM
To: Choi, Don
Cc: 'RJ Atkinson'; ieprep; Scott Bradner
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] problem context

previous
standards,

                                -Bill