1. Session A: How do we better adopt/define and ensure acceptance of standards and interface profiles? Session Facilitator: Dr. Mark Pullen Director GMU C4I Center 1 1 Network Management Interoperability Technical Exchange

2. 2 Breakout Session A: How do we better adopt/define and ensure acceptance of standards and interface profiles? How and when can we apply/adopt commercial standards and best practices? How do we ensure technical profile development and enhancement progresses with the broadest input? Is there a means to force/encourage adoption of standards both in government, as well as the private sector? How do we choose between/manage conflicting standards? Is there an opportunity to foster a standard framework for NM Interoperability? What NM industry standards should be considered for adoption by the DoD? Network Management Interoperability Technical Exchange

3. 3 Breakout Session A: How do we better adopt/define and ensure acceptance of standards and interface profiles? How and when can we apply/adopt commercial standards and best practices? INPUTS: need broad consideration to determine which of the various standards apply in NM context. DISA DoD Registry of Standards manages application of stds for DoD acquisitions. There is a mechanism to enforce compliance, but it is imperfect. Often systems of record drive stds. True, but waivers are more of the standard than the exception. What has worked in NATO is conformance standards, profiles, and enforcement (can’t join network if not compliant w/ profile) Commercial stds need to be adopted at each layer of the OSI model, applied to NM context Commercial viewpoint: adopt commercial taxonomy so standard meets the needs Outsource enterprise service mgmt altogether. Managed by 3 rd party, data owned by Service Network Management Interoperability Technical Exchange

4. 4 Breakout Session A: How do we better adopt/define and ensure acceptance of standards and interface profiles? How do we ensure technical profile development and enhancement progresses with the broadest input? INPUTS : NATO invites requests for input from anyone. Doesn’t always get wide inputs. Need way for DoD activities to keep current on new standards. Need a commercial forum where this can happen. Govt needs to play an active role in providing inputs to commercial stds and profiles development. Network Integration Evaluation (NIE) and joint exercises (e.g. JUICE) are steps in this direction, new technologies for network devices and capabilities. Needs to be combined with a broad forum. Govt needs to invest more effort to understand how to provide better interoperability. Govt should be organized to collaborate on standards decisions to encourage acceptance (DoD CIO, MILDEPs, key decision makers from all Services, with input from commercial and academia) Network Management Interoperability Technical Exchange

5. 5 Breakout Session A: How do we better adopt/define and ensure acceptance of standards and interface profiles? Is there a means to force/encourage adoption of standards both in government, as well as the private sector? INPUTS: private sector: govt requires private sector use of FIPS or other certification processes like DoD Unified Capabilities Approved Product List (UC APL). Private sector must meet stds based requirements before allowed to compete for govt contract sales. Needs to be coordinated with govt forums on standards. To the extent that industry adopts a single standard, that addresses this problem. Govt can actually pay for the development of a standard (example: DARPA RadioMap) Network Management Interoperability Technical Exchange

6. 6 Breakout Session A: How do we better adopt/define and ensure acceptance of standards and interface profiles? How do we choose between/manage conflicting standards? While maintaining interoperability? INPUTS: In general, DoD IT follows industry lead, buying offerings from commercial industry. Exception is where DoD Cyber provides leadership to industry (e.g. NSA, DARPA, etc). If the standards can be bridged, one alternative is to accept multiple standards. Deconflict the standards by manipulating the standard by functionality. Govt should ensure that standards adopted do not conflict with one another. Network Management Interoperability Technical Exchange

7. 7 Breakout Session A: How do we better adopt/define and ensure acceptance of standards and interface profiles? Is there an opportunity to foster a standard framework for NM Interoperability? INPUTS: Yes. There are commercial frameworks such as LTE (used by e.g. Verizon, Sprint) that could be leveraged. Industry standards for global interoperability also exist and could be leveraged. Rather than the NMWG approach presented this morning, DoD could adopt an open network approach and protect and encrypt the data. (Not everyone agreed this was practical) Alternative is to do the following: instead of doing a framework defined by govt to help industry, flip it and help the acquisition process mediate commercial offerings. This may be what NMWG is actually doing. Network Management Interoperability Technical Exchange

8. 8 Breakout Session A: How do we better adopt/define and ensure acceptance of standards and interface profiles? What NM industry standards should be considered for adoption by the DoD? INPUTS: All standards should be considered (see for example RFC 6632). Most important to consider are the ones that play a major role in an application/functional area. This is difficult because of the complexity of the process, which perhaps could be addressed by a standards forum. Network Management Interoperability Technical Exchange