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

Re: Definition of COTS

I hate to bring this back yet another step, but I need this clarified in
my mind before I am useful to the group. It seems there is a debate not
just on the definition of COTS but also the treatment of COTS (no matter
how it is defined).

Our purpose is to resolve comments related to COTS from the last round of balloting in P1583. Therefore, the treatment of COTS is primarily what we are working with. However, I thought that because there were 8 comments relating to the definition, and because including the treatment in the definition muddles the whole matter, it would be best to clean up the definition as a first step.

But I am not sure it is really necessary to define
COTS at all?

Probably not, other than as an acronym, but that's what I'm asking for consensus on.

I would be interested in opinions to the following scenarios:
--- snip --- 
Q3: If a portion of the voting system is COTS (however) defined does
that matter at all?

In so far as how one documents proof that testing was performed, yes; otherwise, no. That is, COTS components for critical systems are generally marketed as having met certain testing criteria, as certified for use in certain types of systems, and proof of V&V is delivered with the component itself. So for, and only for, such administrative reasons is it useful to distinguish COTS components from components developed in-house by the developers of the voting equipment.

Vince Lipsio