DOD-STD-2167a

DOD-STD-2167a

[Spencer Laird]

Is there a copy of DOD-STD-2167A or its replacement online somewhere?  I have
found the HTML version.  I need a Microsoft Word or Postscrift version.  Thanks
Spencer
=======================================================================
Spencer Laird                                 E-Mail: spencerl@cts.com 
Interest: LAIRD, SAMMONS, BENTLEY, BOSS, ROSS, BAKER, COOK, LANDERS in GA
TRIMBLE, TRINDER, ROUGHTON, FISHBURN in Ohio.
========================================================================

Re: DOD-STD-2167a

[David O'Brien]

Spencer Laird (spencerl@cts.com) wrote:
: Is there a copy of DOD-STD-2167A or its replacement online somewhere?  I have
: found the HTML version.  I need a Microsoft Word or Postscrift version.  Thanks

Poking around, I found ajpo.sei.cmu.edu:/public/mil-std-sdd/*
The README file said the "Miliary Standard Defense System Software
Development release" replaces DOD-STD-2167A, DOD-STD-7935A, and
DOD-STD-1703NS.  It comes in postscript and MS-Word for Windows 2.0.

-- David O'Brien	(dobrien@seas.gwu.edu)

Re: DOD-STD-2167a

[David Weller]

In article <3frvbi$re5@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>,
David O'Brien <dobrien@seas.gwu.edu> wrote:
>Spencer Laird (spencerl@cts.com) wrote:
>: Is there a copy of DOD-STD-2167A or its replacement online somewhere?  I have
>: found the HTML version.  I need a Microsoft Word or Postscrift version.  Thanks
>
>Poking around, I found ajpo.sei.cmu.edu:/public/mil-std-sdd/*
>The README file said the "Miliary Standard Defense System Software
>Development release" replaces DOD-STD-2167A, DOD-STD-7935A, and
>DOD-STD-1703NS.  It comes in postscript and MS-Word for Windows 2.0.
>

I put that on the AJPO server many months ago.  The correct document,
Mil-Std-498, is available at: diamond.spawar.navy.mil

Look under MIL498


I don't know what the format is of the final document.

-- 
       Frustrated with C/C++, Pascal, Fortran?  Ada95 _might_ be for you!
	  For all sorts of interesting Ada95 tidbits, run the command:
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)
	

Re: DOD-STD-2167a

[Garlington KE]

David O'Brien (dobrien@seas.gwu.edu) wrote:

: Poking around, I found ajpo.sei.cmu.edu:/public/mil-std-sdd/*
: The README file said the "Miliary Standard Defense System Software
: Development release" replaces DOD-STD-2167A, DOD-STD-7935A, and
: DOD-STD-1703NS.  It comes in postscript and MS-Word for Windows 2.0.

Beware! There is not an _official_ replacement for any of these standards, yet!
MIL-STD-SDD was _intended_ to replace these, but was sidetracked by the Perry
memo. There is now an effort to make MIL-STD-SDD a commercial standard, at
which time it _may_ replace the current standards.

: -- David O'Brien	(dobrien@seas.gwu.edu)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Garlington                  GarlingtonKE@lfwc.lockheed.com
F-22 Computer Resources         Lockheed Fort Worth Co.

If LFWC or the F-22 program has any opinions, they aren't telling me.

Re: DOD-STD-2167a

[Jack Sheriff]

In article <3g0i9d$6hj@cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com> l107353@cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com (Garlington KE) writes:
>David O'Brien (dobrien@seas.gwu.edu) wrote:

>: Poking around, I found ajpo.sei.cmu.edu:/public/mil-std-sdd/*
>: The README file said the "Miliary Standard Defense System Software
>: Development release" replaces DOD-STD-2167A, DOD-STD-7935A, and
>: DOD-STD-1703NS.  It comes in postscript and MS-Word for Windows 2.0.

>Beware! There is not an _official_ replacement for any of these standards, yet!
>MIL-STD-SDD was _intended_ to replace these, but was sidetracked by the Perry
>memo. There is now an effort to make MIL-STD-SDD a commercial standard, at
>which time it _may_ replace the current standards.

This is mostly right, but may be a little misleading.

The Perry memo requires a program office to get a waiver in order to include a 
MIL or DOD standard in a contract.  I have heard that the Air Force and 
the Navy are both processing service-wide waivers for MIL-STD-498 (the 
replacement for the three standards mentioned above).  Once these service-wide 
waivers are in place, any Air Force or Navy office will be able to use the new 
standard without needing to get an individual waiver.

MIL-STD-498 is supposed to have a lifetime of two years.  At the end of the 
two years, it is supposed to be replaced by a commercial standard.  My 
understanding is that it will be an IEEE standard and will look remarkably 
like MIL-STD-498.

Jack Sheriff

Re: DOD-STD-2167a

[Oliver Kellogg]

> >: Poking around, I found ajpo.sei.cmu.edu:/public/mil-std-sdd/*
> >: The README file said the "Miliary Standard Defense System Software
> >: Development release" replaces DOD-STD-2167A, DOD-STD-7935A, and
> >: DOD-STD-1703NS.  It comes in postscript and MS-Word for Windows 2.0.

I went there too (ajpo ftp), but it's a draft dated November 1992.
Does anyone know if and where there's a newer version available
electronically?
Thanks.

      /----------------------------------------------------------------\
    /      Oliver M. Kellogg         |       Daimler-Benz Aerospace AG   \
   |   e-mail: okellogg@cube.net  -- + --   Dept. RST13, P.O.Box 801169   |
    \   fax: (+49) 89 607-23732      |        D-81663 Munich, Germany    /
      \----------------------------------------------------------------/

Re: DOD-STD-2167a

[Howard Verne]

I received a "released" copy of MIL-STD-498 in the mail today.
It is my understanding that it was approved for approx. 2 years
until the IEEE/EIA commercial version is released.
 
verne@pc.gcs.litton.com

Re: DOD-STD-2167a

[Oliver Kellogg]

Howard Verne (verneh@delphi.com) wrote:
> I received a "released" copy of MIL-STD-498 in the mail today.
> It is my understanding that it was approved for approx. 2 years
> until the IEEE/EIA commercial version is released.

What must I do to receive such a copy?
Thanks for the information.
--Oliver

      /----------------------------------------------------------------\
    /      Oliver M. Kellogg         |       Daimler-Benz Aerospace AG   \
   |   e-mail: okellogg@cube.net  -- + --   Dept. RST13, P.O.Box 801169   |
    \   fax: (+49) 89 607-23732      |        D-81663 Munich, Germany    /
      \----------------------------------------------------------------/

Re: DOD-STD-2167a

[Scott . Smart CDR]

In article <BQ8ZKAn.verneh@delphi.com>, Howard Verne <verneh@delphi.com> wrote:
>I received a "released" copy of MIL-STD-498 in the mail today.
>It is my understanding that it was approved for approx. 2 years
>until the IEEE/EIA commercial version is released.
> 
>verne@pc.gcs.litton.com

FWIW, we recently received direction (believe from Sec Nav) that there
was no commercial equivalent standard to 2167A that would produce
software with the requried reliability.  Therefore, 2167A (and I suppose
498) are approved for specifying in mission critical software contracts.

s smart


--
|Naval Surface Warface Center|  sws@suned1.nswses.navy.mil
| Port Hueneme Division      |  Any statements / opinions are mine and not
| Cruise Weapons Dept        |  DoD or DoN

Electronic Availability of MIL-STD-498 (wasDOD-STD-2167A)

[Doc Elliott]

In article <3g693a$5sb@salyko.cube.net>, okellogg@cube.net says...
>
>> >: Poking around, I found ajpo.sei.cmu.edu:/public/mil-std-sdd/*
>> >: The README file said the "Miliary Standard Defense System Software
>> >: Development release" replaces DOD-STD-2167A, DOD-STD-7935A, and
>> >: DOD-STD-1703NS.  It comes in postscript and MS-Word for Windows 
2.0.
>
>I went there too (ajpo ftp), but it's a draft dated November 1992.
>Does anyone know if and where there's a newer version available
>electronically?
>Thanks.

I can't find the original post now, but it was posted here on 
comp.lang.ada.  The poster had a FTP host where one could get the 
MIL-STD-498 document along with all the Data Item Descriptions.  I 
retrieved the whole shmear, and I have it if anyone wants it.  It is in 
WordPerfect 5.1 format.  The whole thing (zipped) is 597777 bytes.  The 
POC given in the README document is LCDR Dana S. Majors, (703)602-9188.  
Obviously, this is a Navy document.  Email me, and I can UUencode post it 
here on cla, or give you my FTP host address.

Doc Elliott
KE4KUZ
Internet: helliott@losat.redstone.army.mil
packet: ke4kuz@k4ry.#cenal.al.usa.noam
The opinions expressed herein are mine, and do not
reflect those of my employer or anyone else unless
specifically stated as such.

Re: Electronic Availability of MIL-STD-498 (wasDOD-STD-2167A)

[Brad Balfour]

In article <3gatht$89q@michp1.redstone.army.mil>,
helliott@losat.redstone.army.mil (Doc Elliott) wrote:

> I can't find the original post now, but it was posted here on 
> comp.lang.ada.  The poster had a FTP host where one could get the 
> MIL-STD-498 document along with all the Data Item Descriptions.  I 
> retrieved the whole shmear, and I have it if anyone wants it.  It is in 
> WordPerfect 5.1 format.  The whole thing (zipped) is 597777 bytes.  The 
> POC given in the README document is LCDR Dana S. Majors, (703)602-9188.  
> Obviously, this is a Navy document.  Email me, and I can UUencode post it 
> here on cla, or give you my FTP host address.

The following is from the ACM SIGAda WWW Server
<http://info.acm.org/sigada/> which has a link to the electronic version
of MIL-STD-498:

        MIL-STD 498 Available

An electronic copy of MIL-STD 498 is available.
<ftp://diamond.spawar.navy.mil/MIL498/498-zip.exe> Click here
<ftp://diamond.spawar.navy.mil/MIL498/readme.txt> to see the readme file.
The document was produced using WordPerfect 5.1 for Dos. For further
assistance contact: LCDR Dana S. Majors at (703)602-91


> Doc Elliott
> KE4KUZ
> Internet: helliott@losat.redstone.army.mil
> packet: ke4kuz@k4ry.#cenal.al.usa.noam
> The opinions expressed herein are mine, and do not
> reflect those of my employer or anyone else unless
> specifically stated as such.

-- 
Brad Balfour
ACM SIGAda Secretary
bbalfour@acm.org
(703) 824-4505

Re: DOD-STD-2167a

[Doc Elliott]

In article <49686@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL>, sws@mercury.nswses.navy.mil 
says...
>
>In article <BQ8ZKAn.verneh@delphi.com>, Howard Verne <verneh@delphi.com> 
wrote:
>>I received a "released" copy of MIL-STD-498 in the mail today.
>>It is my understanding that it was approved for approx. 2 years
>>until the IEEE/EIA commercial version is released.
>> 
>>verne@pc.gcs.litton.com
>
>FWIW, we recently received direction (believe from Sec Nav) that there
>was no commercial equivalent standard to 2167A that would produce
>software with the requried reliability.  Therefore, 2167A (and I suppose
>498) are approved for specifying in mission critical software contracts.
>
>s smart

Please, Please, Please post or email me the text of the "direction" you 
received regarding this.  I need to know who wrote the direction, when, 
and to whom it was directed.  We were told verbally, in the Army 
Acquisition Streamlining RoadShow, yesterday, by Mr. Gilbert Decker, 
Asst Sec of Army for RDA, that there would be no use of 2167A or 498 in 
procurement documents by the military.  It would sure be nice to a) prove 
him wrong; b) show that other branches of the military are not throwing 
the entire bathroom out with the baby and the bathwater.


Doc Elliott
KE4KUZ
Internet: helliott@losat.redstone.army.mil
packet: ke4kuz@k4ry.#cenal.al.usa.noam
The opinions expressed herein are mine, and do not
reflect those of my employer or anyone else unless
specifically stated as such.

Re: DOD-STD-2167a

[Theodore E. Dennison]

spencerl@cts.com (Spencer Laird) wrote:
>
> Is there a copy of DOD-STD-2167A or its replacement online somewhere?  I have
> found the HTML version.  I need a Microsoft Word or Postscrift version.  Thanks

I believe most HTML viewers are capable of saving HTML documents as
Postscript documents.

T.E.D.

Re: DOD-STD-2167a

[Doc Elliott]

In article <3g0i9d$6hj@cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com>, 
l107353@cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com says...
>

deletia

>Beware! There is not an _official_ replacement for any of these 
>standards, yet!  MIL-STD-SDD was _intended_ to replace these, but was 
>sidetracked by the Perry memo. There is now an effort to make 
>MIL-STD-SDD a commercial standard, at which time it _may_ replace the 
>current standards.
>
>: -- David O'Brien      (dobrien@seas.gwu.edu)
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ken Garlington                  GarlingtonKE@lfwc.lockheed.com

The following was copied off the front of the document referenced.  Have 
we been had by a hoax?  Does anyone have a definitive answer?

                             NOT MEASUREMENT
                                SENSITIVE
                                    
                                    
                                MIL-STD-498
                              5 December 1994
                             _________________
                                                                
Superseding                                                              
DOD-STD-2167A
29 February 1988
                                                              
DOD-STD-7935A
31 October 1988
                                                           
DOD-STD-1703(NS)
12 February 1987


                             MILITARY STANDARD


                          SOFTWARE  DEVELOPMENT
                                    
                           AND  DOCUMENTATION
                                    
AMSC NO. N7069                         AREA:  IPSC/MCCR

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A.  Approved for public release; distribution is 
unlimited. 



Doc Elliott
KE4KUZ
Internet: helliott@losat.redstone.army.mil
packet: ke4kuz@k4ry.#cenal.al.usa.noam
The opinions expressed herein are mine, and do not
reflect those of my employer or anyone else unless
specifically stated as such.

Re: DOD-STD-2167a

[David Weller]

In article <3g17bj$m13@michp1.redstone.army.mil>,
Doc Elliott <helliott@losat.redstone.army.mil> wrote:
>In article <3g0i9d$6hj@cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com>, 
>l107353@cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com says...
>
>>Beware! There is not an _official_ replacement for any of these 
>>standards, yet!  MIL-STD-SDD was _intended_ to replace these, but was 
>>sidetracked by the Perry memo. There is now an effort to make 
>>MIL-STD-SDD a commercial standard, at which time it _may_ replace the 
>>current standards.
>>
>The following was copied off the front of the document referenced.  Have 
>we been had by a hoax?  Does anyone have a definitive answer?
>

It should be clear that comp.lang.ada is _not_ the place to get a
definitive answer.  That being said, it shoudl also be noted that
Mil-Std-498 was indeed designed to replace several other documents,
including 2167A.  Further, the Perry memo does _not_ blanket Mil
standards, it merely requires using commercial standards where
possible.  Since there is no existing commercial documentation
standard, use Mil-std-498.  It became "official", to my knowledge,
sometime last OCtober.  Then again, I'm not an "official" channel :-)


-- 
       Frustrated with C/C++, Pascal, Fortran?  Ada95 _might_ be for you!
	  For all sorts of interesting Ada95 tidbits, run the command:
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)
	

Re: DOD-STD-2167a

[Garlington KE]

Doc Elliott (helliott@losat.redstone.army.mil) wrote:
: The following was copied off the front of the document referenced.  Have 
: we been had by a hoax?  Does anyone have a definitive answer?

Oops! My bad. MIL-STD-498 _did_ get approved for a two-year interim period
(for any new projects started during that time) while it gets developed into
a commercial standard. Sorry about that...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Garlington                  GarlingtonKE@lfwc.lockheed.com
F-22 Computer Resources         Lockheed Fort Worth Co.

If LFWC or the F-22 program has any opinions, they aren't telling me.

Re: DOD-STD-2167a

[Chris Warack <sys mgr>]

In the AF anyway, the word is that 498 is good for the next two years at
which time a commercial standard must be used (read as 498 packaged as
a commercial standard).  This was justified by the dearth of commercial
standards adequate in that area.

In article <3g17bj$m13@michp1.redstone.army.mil>, helliott@losat.redstone.army.mil (Doc Elliott) writes:
|> In article <3g0i9d$6hj@cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com>, 
|> l107353@cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com says...
|> >
|> 
|> deletia
|> 
|> >Beware! There is not an _official_ replacement for any of these 
|> >standards, yet!  MIL-STD-SDD was _intended_ to replace these, but was 
|> >sidetracked by the Perry memo. There is now an effort to make 
|> >MIL-STD-SDD a commercial standard, at which time it _may_ replace the 
|> >current standards.
|> >
|> >: -- David O'Brien      (dobrien@seas.gwu.edu)
|> >
|> >--------------------------------------------------------------------
|> >Ken Garlington                  GarlingtonKE@lfwc.lockheed.com
|> 
|> The following was copied off the front of the document referenced.  Have 
|> we been had by a hoax?  Does anyone have a definitive answer?
|> 
|>                              NOT MEASUREMENT
|>                                 SENSITIVE
|>                                     
|>                                     
|>                                 MIL-STD-498
|>                               5 December 1994
|>                              _________________
|>                                                                 
|> Superseding                                                              
|> DOD-STD-2167A
|> 29 February 1988
|>                                                               
|> DOD-STD-7935A
|> 31 October 1988
|>                                                            
|> DOD-STD-1703(NS)
|> 12 February 1987
|> 
|> 
|>                              MILITARY STANDARD
|> 
|> 
|>                           SOFTWARE  DEVELOPMENT
|>                                     
|>                            AND  DOCUMENTATION
|>                                     
|> AMSC NO. N7069                         AREA:  IPSC/MCCR
|> 
|> DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A.  Approved for public release; distribution is 
|> unlimited. 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> Doc Elliott
|> KE4KUZ
|> Internet: helliott@losat.redstone.army.mil
|> packet: ke4kuz@k4ry.#cenal.al.usa.noam
|> The opinions expressed herein are mine, and do not
|> reflect those of my employer or anyone else unless
|> specifically stated as such.
|> 

-- 
Christopher A. Warack, Capt, USAF
Computer Science Department, US Air Force Academy

cwarack@kirk.usafa.af.mil                (719) 472-2401

Re: DOD-STD-2167a

[Doc Elliott]

In article <INFO-ADA%95012615321114@VM1.NODAK.EDU>, 
CONDIC@PSAVAX.PWFL.COM says...
>

Sniperoo

>Just because it comes from the government doesn't automatically
>make it a bad thing - eh? Anybody else out there think 498 is
>O.K.?
>

I didn't think that 2167A was all that bad!  Sure it had flaws, but those 
flaws only manifested themselves in programs where the standard was 
blindly and rigidly applied and interpreted by Government managers who 
didn't understand the software process.  

This information is worth just what you paid for it.

-- 
Doc Elliott
KE4KUZ
Internet: helliott@losat.redstone.army.mil
packet: ke4kuz@k4ry.#cenal.al.usa.noam
The opinions expressed herein are mine, and do not
reflect those of my employer or anyone else unless
specifically stated as such.

Re: DOD-STD-2167a

[Kevin Weise]

In article <3gqspo$n3l@usafa2.usafa.af.mil>,
Chris Warack <sys mgr> <sys mgr> wrote:
>                            And, as we all know, perception counts at
>least as much as reality.
>

I'm sorry to be so pessimistic, but from my perspective on what happens
in the "real world" (if such a thing *really* exists) is that perception
is far more important than reality.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin J. Weise			weisek@source.asset.com
COLSA Corporation		Voice - (205) 922-1512 ext. 2115
6726 Odyssey Drive		FAX   - (205) 971-0002
Huntsville, AL  35806
{Standard Disclaimers about my opinions & my employer's opinions}
{... which are in conflict often enough}
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Admire those who seek the truth;
  avoid those who find it."		Marcel Proust

Re: DOD-STD-2167a

[CONDIC]

From: Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93
Subject: Re: DOD-STD-2167a
Original_To:  PROFS%"SMTP@PWAGPDB"
Original_cc:  CONDIC



Doc Elliott <helliott@LOSAT.REDSTONE.ARMY.MIL> Writes:
>
>I didn't think that 2167A was all that bad!  Sure it had flaws, but those
>flaws only manifested themselves in programs where the standard was
>blindly and rigidly applied and interpreted by Government managers who
>didn't understand the software process.
>
I have to agree with this. 2167A can be made to work effectively
because it provides a bucket for every possible development
byproduct and an "enlightened" reading of the processes allows
for almost any development model. If you're good at tailoring it,
you can easily come up with a rational mapping to the practices
you think you need.

Still, there are the Les Miserables (sp?) style program managers
who can't quite seem to grok that. Hence 498 tried to require
fewer specific methods. I think it's an improvement, but we'd
still be better off if there were a way to "tailor requirements
*in*" rather than having to "tailor requirements *out*" The
latter generally leads to that "blind application of 'the rules'"
syndrome.

Pax,
Marin

Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer    ATT:        407.796.8997
M/S 731-93                                      Technet:    796.8997
Pratt & Whitney, GESP                           Internet:   CONDICMA@PWFL.COM
P.O. Box 109600                                 Internet:   MDCONDIC@AOL.COM
West Palm Beach, FL 33410-9600
===============================================================================
    "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."

        --  Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.
===============================================================================

Re: DOD-STD-2167a

[Garlington KE]

CONDIC@PSAVAX.PWFL.COM wrote:
: Still, there are the Les Miserables (sp?) style program managers
: who can't quite seem to grok that. Hence 498 tried to require
: fewer specific methods. I think it's an improvement, but we'd
: still be better off if there were a way to "tailor requirements
: *in*" rather than having to "tailor requirements *out*" The
: latter generally leads to that "blind application of 'the rules'"
: syndrome.

Actually, on F-22, we put in the SOW the words, "All software will be developed in accordance with the F-22 Software Development Plan." We then tailored in a 
whole bunch of requirements...

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Garlington                  GarlingtonKE@lfwc.lockheed.com
F-22 Computer Resources         Lockheed Fort Worth Co.

If LFWC or the F-22 program has any opinions, they aren't telling me.