[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Definition of COTS



Vince -

In a separate column of my spreadsheet, I marked all the negative comments
on the second sentence in this definition as "group 1".  IIRC, there were 8
comments objecting to the second sentence, not just 3.


Stan Klein




At 02:49 PM 1/21/2004 -0500, Vincent J. Lipsio wrote:
>In the email to which I'm belatedly replying (appended below), Stephen
>Berger asks, "do we (particularly the STG group) agree with that
>definition?", where "that definition" is:
>
>> Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS): Commercial, readily-available hardware
>> devices (such as card readers, printers, or personal computers) or
>> software products (such as operating systems, programming language
>> compilers, or database management systems).  These devices and software
>> are exempted from certain portions of the qualification testing process
>> so long as such products are not modified in any manner for use in the
>> voting system.
>
>Three comments by three individuals (including myself) objected to the
>second sentence because it is out of scope in a definition.  Also,
>other definitions in our standard do not include examples.
>
>Therefore, I propose three possible solutions:
>
>1)  Eliminate the definition altogether because COTS appears in the
>    subsequent section, 3.1, "Abbreviations and Acronyms".
>2)  Change the definition as follows:  "Commercial Off-the-Shelf
>    systems, subsystems, or components of any type, including
>    mechanical, electronic, and software."
>3)  A hybrid of the above: Eliminate the definition and add in
>    "Abbreviations and Acronyms" the text: "(subsystems or components;
>    software, electronic, mechanical, et cetera)"
>
>Comments welcome,
>Vince Lipsio
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>The following was written by Stephen Berger on Sun, 16 Nov 2003:
>
>I had some facinating discussion last week with Bob Mandeville at the IEEE
>802 meetings.  Bob and I along with several others were proposing a new
>standard within IEEE 802.  Bob's presentation, which I am attaching
>discussed the approach to developing standards commonly used in the IETF.
>The key to much of that approach is to start by clearly defining terms.  His
>statement was that this was typically the hardest part.
>
>I think the comments below make it clear that this is where the COTS STG
>needs to start.  To help get the ball rolling let me provide one of Bob's
>slides here:
>
>Terminology Definition Template:
>--Term to be defined. (e.g., Latency)
>--Definition: The specific definition for the term. Discussion: A brief
>discussion about the term, it's application and any restrictions on
>measurement procedures.
>--Measurement units: The units used to report measurements of this term, if
>applicable.
>--Issues: List of issues or conditions that effect this term.
>--See Also: List of other terms that are relevant to the discussion of this
>term.
>
>Methodology Definition Template:
>--Objectives
>--Setup parameters
>--Procedures
>--Measurements
>--Reporting formats
>
>So applying this to COTS, we start with the definition in the current draft,
>which I think is currently unchanged from the 2002 FEC standard:
>
>Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS): Commercial, readily-available hardware
>devices (such as card readers, printers, or personal computers) or software
>products (such as operating systems, programming language compilers, or
>database management systems).  These devices and software are exempted from
>certain portions of the qualification testing process so long as such
>products are not modified in any manner for use in the voting system.
>
>First question, do we (particularly the STG group) agree with that
>definition?  Everyone seems to agree that modified products are not COTS.
>So is the limitation at the end of the definition sufficient?
>
>In Bob's method he recommends having a discussion of the application and any
>restrictions on measurement procedure.  The STG needs to come up with some
>discussion of those boundaries in this context.  I think we all agree that
>some of the environmental testing can be set aside where it is clear that
>hardware already meets comparable specifications and has been tested for
>other purposes, such as the CE Mark requirements.  I think from our Austin
>discussion we all agree that even things we all agree are COTS doesn't get a
>waive on all testing.  What we need is a draft of the language setting those
>boundaries and suggestions for where that discussion should be included in
>the document.
>
>Hope the above is helpful to the COTS STG.  I at least found it of interest.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Stephen Berger
>
>