SAFE DRAFT RFP

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84-00933R000500070026-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 8, 2002
• Sequence Number: 26
• Publication Date: March 3, 1980
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP84-00933R000500070026-4
STATINTL
STATINTL
SPS/ODP
Jr.
Deputy Director of Data Processing
SUBJECT: SAFE Draft RFP
Attached are some comments that I have as
a result of reading through the SAFE Draft RFP.
Att: a/s
cc: DD/P/ODP
O/D/OD ee/3-3-80
Distribution:
Orig - adse
1 - ODP Registry w/o att.
1 - DD/P/ODP w/att.
2 - O/D/ODP (1 w/att)
Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP84-00933R000500070026-4
STATINTL
 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP84-00933R000500070026-4
Comments on SAFE Draft RFP
1. Section F.0.1. states that SAFE will be available
to the users 99.5% of the time. Section F.1.2.7.1. requires
an availability of 99.9% for the global processor. Who
measures and how? Can you ever get from 99.9% equipment to
99.5% system availability with as many components as are
required in the SAFE architecture?
2. Section F.2.1.3.3.1. specifies that the Site I
EIP/MAP function have the ability to interface 75 lines. This
number has been the subject of much previous informal discussion.
This specification should be changed to indicate a minimum of
75 lines. It should also require easy and rapid expansion,
which is critical to the design.selected for implementation.
As recently as last week the 75 was indicated to be an absolute
minimum by OCR.
3. Section F.3.2.3.1. specifies a requirement for higher
order languages that includes COBOL. What's the need? Why
not PL/I as a required language instead? Section H.3. on
desirable software features includes PL/I. In light of
our investment in PL/I and disinvestment in COBOL over the
last 12 years, wouldn't it make more sense to make PL/I
mandatory and COBOL desirable?
4. Annex 3 on the Global II DBMS and Report Writer
speaks only of the Site II requirements. Having heard on
29 February 1980 that the Site I requirement is not to be
satisfied with a DBMS, I am terribly uneasy about a Site II
software requirement driving a Site I hardware configuration
that may give us something that is difficult to build upon.
I don't see how Site I can be indifferent or am I missing
something?
The Site I equipment quantities shown in Figure
AT
F.0.2. are said not to be strictly mandatory in Section
F.0.2., apparently leaving the door open to a vendor to
propose alternate quantities. is such a change a change in
architecture? Why shouldn't someone be allowed to propose,
e.g., a smaller number of midi processors if he can
"clearly explain the differences exist and what advantages
would accrue to in accepting the proposed modifications?"
Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP84-00933R000500070026-4