DOD-STD-1679A(Navy)

DOD-STD-1679A(Navy)

[Mark Cronan]

Hi,

I am working on a project which, alas is using DOD-STD-1679A.  The project
is being done in ADA but the question is comming up, what is the
interpretation of the phrase "machine instruction words".  Paragraph
5.10.3 of the standard uses this phrase to define the number of allowable
problems in the software at acceptance.  Has anyone out there worked on an
ADA project which has addressed this problem? Or know someone I can get in
contact with who does know? 


Thanks
Mark

Re: DOD-STD-1679A(Navy)

[verne]

>   cronan@sydney.DIALix.oz.au (Mark Cronan) writes:
>  Hi,
>  
>  I am working on a project which, alas is using DOD-STD-1679A.  The project
>  is being done in ADA but the question is comming up, what is the
>  interpretation of the phrase "machine instruction words".  
>  
>  
>  Thanks
>  Mark
>  
>  
>>>>
I know that you don't want to hear this answer but-----
If the Ada compiler has the ability to list assembly language than that will supply your answer...

else, use the load map and make an assumption as to the average size of each assembly instruction (e.g. for a byte oriented 
machine having 16 and 32 bit instruction -- 3 bytes/inst

Re: DOD-STD-1679A(Navy)

[Doc Elliott]

In article <3jgic3$q3g$1@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>, cronan@sydney.DIALix.oz.au 
says...
>

Sniperoo

>Paragraph 5.10.3 of the standard uses this phrase to define the number 
>of allowable problems in the software at acceptance.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

?!?!?!?!  The Navy actually will accept a CSCI that has KNOWN problems?
And yet they still get more of the DoD budget than we do.....

-- 
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-1679A(Navy)

[Garlington KE]

Doc Elliott (helliott@losat.redstone.army.mil) wrote:
: ?!?!?!?!  The Navy actually will accept a CSCI that has KNOWN problems?
: And yet they still get more of the DoD budget than we do.....

To be fair, I think all U.S. military services have a waiver and deviation
process that permits accepting CSCIs with known problems.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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-1679A(Navy)

[Jeff Seigle]

In article <3jncg0$7vu@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com> l107353@cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com (Garlington KE) writes:
>Doc Elliott (helliott@losat.redstone.army.mil) wrote:
>: ?!?!?!?!  The Navy actually will accept a CSCI that has KNOWN problems?
>: And yet they still get more of the DoD budget than we do.....
>
>To be fair, I think all U.S. military services have a waiver and deviation
>process that permits accepting CSCIs with known problems.

Every commercial software product you buy has "known problems."  Trouble is,
you're not the one who knows about them.  Wouldn't you rather have a list
of the problems?  It is not unheard of to deliver software with known 
problems to the DoD or anyone else, as long as you come clean about it (and
fix it later).

Re: DOD-STD-1679A(Navy)

[Garlington KE]

Jeff Seigle (jseigle@csci.csc.com) wrote:
: Every commercial software product you buy has "known problems."  Trouble is,
: you're not the one who knows about them.  Wouldn't you rather have a list
: of the problems?

Speak for yourself! The Ada compiler _I_ buy absolutely comes with a list of
known problems.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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-1679A(Navy)

[verne]

>   Jeff Seigle <jseigle@csci.csc.com> writes:
>  In article <3jncg0$7vu@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com> l107353@cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com (Garlington KE) writes:
>  >Doc Elliott (helliott@losat.redstone.army.mil) wrote:
>  >: ?!?!?!?!  The Navy actually will accept a CSCI that has KNOWN problems?
>  >: And yet they still get more of the DoD budget than we do.....
>  >
>  >To be fair, I think all U.S. military services have a waiver and deviation
>  >process that permits accepting CSCIs with known problems.
>  
>  Every commercial software product you buy has "known problems."  Trouble is,
>  you're not the one who knows about them.  Wouldn't you rather have a list
>  of the problems?  It is not unheard of to deliver software with known 
>  problems to the DoD or anyone else, as long as you come clean about it (and
>  fix it later).
>  
>>>>


Well said! 

Re: DOD-STD-1679A(Navy)

[Scott . Smart CDR]

In article <3jncg0$7vu@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com>,
Garlington KE <l107353@cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com> wrote:
>Doc Elliott (helliott@losat.redstone.army.mil) wrote:
>: ?!?!?!?!  The Navy actually will accept a CSCI that has KNOWN problems?
>: And yet they still get more of the DoD budget than we do.....
>
>To be fair, I think all U.S. military services have a waiver and deviation
>process that permits accepting CSCIs with known problems.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.

Ummm...  Show me the software with no known problems, and I'll show
you the software that hasn't been tested.

1679A defines problems in terms of severity.  Pri 1 -- Pri 5.

The old NAVELEX TADSTANDS provided test and acceptance criteria
for Navy software in Mission Critical Computer Resources.  The
TADSTANDS were cancelled by SECNAVINST 5200.32A  which considers
software as part of the system.  The acceptance criteria was no
Pri 1s or 2s.

But the real acceptance criteria is whether the independent T&E
agent finds the system operationally effective and suitable.

scott 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

Re: DOD-STD-1679A(Navy)

[Doc Elliott]

In article <50716@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL>, sws@mercury.nswses.navy.mil 
says...
>
Snip
>
>Ummm...  Show me the software with no known problems, and I'll show
>you the software that hasn't been tested.
>

Or you'll be showing me software that has been thoroughly tested.

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-1679A(Navy)

[Mike Meier]

Doc Elliott (helliott@losat.redstone.army.mil) wrote:
: In article <50716@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL>, sws@mercury.nswses.navy.mil 
: says...
: >Ummm...  Show me the software with no known problems, and I'll show
: >you the software that hasn't been tested.

: Or you'll be showing me software that has been thoroughly tested.

Actually, even thoroughly tested software always has some trouble reports
since the customer -always- exercises the option to submit priority 4 and 5
trouble reports for operator inconveniences and suggested improvements.
I've never known a program where the customer (and contractor) didn't feel
some improvements could be made, but didn't feel it was important to get them
all into the current version.

Mike Meier
Magnavox Electronic Systems Company