[comp.protocols.tcp-ip] MIL-STD 1780 doing double duty

oconnor@SCCGATE.SCC.COM (Mike O'Connor) (09/07/89)

        Under the Military Standards list in the NIC/Query database, 
MIL-STD 1780 is cited as the standard for both IP and FTP.  Obviously
this is a typo that should be corrected.
 
        My question is, what is the correct entry for IP?  Has MIL-STD 1777
been replaced, possibly with a MIL-STD specification that resolves the
problems cited in RFC963?     
        If MIL-STD 1777 has not been replaced or modified, I have the 
(seemingly) age-old problem of how to respond to a DoD request for an
implementation of MIL-STD 1777.    
 
                Thanks, 
                        Mike

solensky@interlan.interlan.COM (Frank Solensky) (09/14/89)

In <8909071355.AA03484@sccgate.scc.com>, Mike O'Connor writes:

>        My question is, what is the correct entry for IP?  Has MIL-STD 1777
>been replaced, possibly with a MIL-STD specification that resolves the
>problems cited in RFC963?     
>        If MIL-STD 1777 has not been replaced or modified, I have the 
>(seemingly) age-old problem of how to respond to a DoD request for an
>implementation of MIL-STD 1777.    

	There is an RFC that will be coming out shortly called "Requirements
for Internet Hosts -- Communications Layers".  A working group of the
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), chaired by Robert Braden, got together
to correct some of the errors in and inconsistancies between the different
specifications (RFC-791, MIL-STD-1777, etc.) of what IP and others protocols
{must/should/may/should not/must not} be doing to be considered "correct".
My understanding is that this document will eventually be adopted by
DoD as the standard that will be adhered to.
					-- Frank Solensky
					   Racal InterLan