RFC 939: Executive summary of the NRC report on transport protocols for Department of Defense data networks

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]

RFC 939: Executive summary of the NRC report on transport protocols for Department of Defense data networks