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. ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 24 2002 - 11:54:51 EDT