THINK PIECE - "CABLES"

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP89G00643R001100040026-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 13
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 10, 2011
• Sequence Number: 26
• Publication Date: June 25, 1987
• Content Type: MEMO

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89GO0643R001100040026-3
William-F. Donnelly
ST
AT Deputy Director for Administration
STAT z.
ST
AT
1 8.
ST
AT
STA
DDA SUBJECT FILE COPY
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
SUBJECT: (Optional)
? -
FR
EXTENSION
NO.
D
T
A
E
25 August 1987
TO: (Officer designation, room number, and
DATE
building)
OFFICER'S
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
RECEIVED
FORWARDED
INITIALS
to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.)
D/OC
Don:
Enclosed are a series of notes
that have been flying around here
at Headquarters on the topic of
3
"cables." I think you should be
aware of the dialogue.
4.
I suggest you get in touch
with Ed Malone and make arrange-
ments to send abroad
5.
to visit two or three of our
communications installations,
including a large one. If he
6.
is going to stimulate discussions
such as revealed in these
messages--and I'm not against
7.
that--he ought to have a bit
more exposure to OC abroad.
9.
William F. Donnelly
10.
11.
T
12.
13.
14.
15.
FORM 610 use nlEvlous
i_7a EDITIONS
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89GO0643R001100040026-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89GO0643R001100040026-3
Administrative/Internal Use Only
STAT
NOTE FOR:
FROM:
As Bill points out, there are many institutional barriers to
rapidly moving away from "cables". However, there is the opportu-
nity to start modifying the customer's perceptions such that he
will accept the notion that "cables" are a special, stylized form
of E-mail. Most of the current end-user developments,e.g., CRAFT
are viewed as "cable" systems even though they are obviously
customized E-mail machines.
Once the customer identifies cables with E-mail, he will
quickly see the possibilities of simplifying his world and many
arcane ideas will begin to evaporate.
This will make the Agency system better but will not rid
service organizations of the "cable" problem in our generation.
The need for common interchange formats among and within the U.S.
and allied Governments will, as a minimum, guarantee a continua-
tion of the classic gateway conversion requirement.
At this point in time, the issue is the engineer's bane-
public relations and customer perceptions.
Administrative/Tni-nrn=I TT-_ n.,i..
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89GO0643R001100040026-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89G00643R001100040026-3
SUBJECT: Think Piece - "Cables" (U)
STAT
Finally, if we can agree that a major portion of our
communications network must be Agency owned and operated for
reasons of security and assured availability under almost any
circumstances, why not maintain and improve upon a design that
has proven effective in meeting unique Agency needs over the
years, requires minimal effort by our customers to use and can
withstand the kinds of stress not experienced by architectures
serving private indust ? I wonder how commercial architecture
STAT would have coped with r and multitude of other
similar situations that have occurred over the past 25 years?
(U/AIUO)
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89G00643R001100040026-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89G00643R001100040026-3
25X1
7FX1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
NOTE FOR: William Moyer
FROM:
SUBJECT: Think Piece - "Cables"
At the risk of being labeled "old fashioned" (or worse) I
would like to point out some issues that were not fully addressed
First, I don't believe there is a commercial communications
architecture available that would provide the services,
reliability and security required by this Agency. And let's not
kid ourselves into believing that Agency communications needs are
not unique; the requirement for cryptographically secure
communications alone makes us unique in comparison to the private
in Bill's paper.
sector.
staff communications network provides a variety of
the globe.
In my mind, your concept calls for a highly robust network of
relatively high data rate circuits to every one of these
facilities. I can think of only two ways of implementing such a
network: 1) rely on commercial lease service, and 2) enhance the
existing network (one that incorporates a mix of USG and
commercially provided service, predominately the former). I
don't believe the first option could be implemented even with an
unlimited budget --- some countries cannot provide internal
telephone services much less high data rate international
telecommunication services. The second option could possibly be
implemented but again, not without very major enhancements to USG
owned systems beyond those improvements already planned. Agency
IIn any event, very major,
very high cost improvements to our entire telecommunications
infrastructure would be necessary.
-- Warning Notice --
Intelligence Sources
or Methods Involved
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89G00643R001100040026-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89G00643R001100040026-3
Administrative/Internal Use Only
SUBJECT: Think Piece - "Cables"
Two important issues to be addressed in this context would be
our requirements for message protection and message integrity.
We protect messages from disclosure by encrypting them; these
protocols would have to work with our encrypting methods and
hardware. We also employ elaborate methods to account for the
passage of a message from its origin to its destination, so that
our systems provide great confidence that messages do not get
lost. Integrity control of at least equal capability would be
required.
What should we do about these ideas? It's time to take a
high-level look at allof our communication systems, with an eye
toward adopting new approaches to their implementation that would
allow us to deliver the present capability, with all the controls
that it now offers, in an environment featuring new
architectures, making extensive use of commercial technology.
Such a system environment can preserve the good part of what we
have while providing us a platform for implementing new kinds of
applications.
This sort of high-level examination of the issues could be
done by us or by us with contractor participation. The ideal
team might consist of several Agency people, from OIT and from
OC, and several highly-qualified contractors (who might come from
one or several companies); the team's job would be to develop a
system concept that would meet Agency needs and make maximum
feasible use of commercial products, providing advanced
communications protocols. I'd see this as about a 6-month job
for a handful of people.
Administrative/Internal Use Only
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89G00643R001100040026-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89G00643R001100040026-3
Administrative/Internal Use Only
SUBJECT: Think Piece - "Cables"
shorter implementation costs, and improved ease of adopting new
technology.
The second suggestion that Bill is making is that, while we
are rethinking our approach to communications, we ought to look
at some wholly new concepts that have emerged into the commercial
mainstream. Some of these are networking concepts, with the use
of shared lines, automatic alternate routing and network
management. I believe that we're beginning to pay attention to
these issues.
The major architectural concept that Bill brings up is that
there are new communications architectures that go beyond cables.
There are advanced protocols for connecting together two
programs, one possibly running in a workstation that serves a
user, that allow those two programs to cooperate in providing
higher-quality application services than otherwise can be
delivered. While we're rethinking our communication systems
around new concepts, we ought to incorporate these advanced
protocols.
One of the important protocols is a store-and-forward
protocol that allows the exchange of information between programs
for what can be called an "office mode" of computing. In the
past, there have been only two modes of computing, "do-it-now"
(interactive service) and "do-it-whenever" (batch service). A
computing activity was either to be accomplished at once, or it
was a batch submission, to be dealt with at some time in the
distant future. This new concept allows for information to be
routed through several different applications, that can all be
active at once, each receiving incoming work from a queue much
like the inbox on a desk and putting outgoing work in an output
queue. With such applications, information processing systems
can be implemented that work like the paper flow in an office.
Such information processing systems can automatically make
extractions, copies, routing actions and otherwise act on
information. Ultimately, as we tie together computers in the
field and in Headquarters in structured ways, applications using
these advanced protocols could eliminate a lot of rekeying and
manual resending of routine information that now takes place.
You've no doubt noticed that a store-and-forward protocol can
also be used to implement a message delivery system; this, the
cable deivery system we now use can be implemented within this
framework. That is, within this new world of advanced protocols,
we can implement the cable service that we now have, preserving
all of the useful capability we have now, but providing a path
for future expansion of capability as well as a lower-cost, more
commercial platform for our systems.
Administrative/Internal Use Only
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89G00643R001100040026-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89G00643R001100040026-3
Administrative/Internal Use Only
17 July 1987
STAT
SUBJECT: Think Piece - "Cables"
NOTE FOR:
FROM:
This is my attempt to identify the consequences of following
through on Bill's suggestions, developed after reading Bill's
STAT note and talking to Bill and
I think that Bill's intent is to state that in a technical
sense the communications services that we now provide are being
provided in a primitive fashion, although our dedicated people
nevertheless manage to do a very effective job of delivering
services, primarily by means of very hard work on their part. If
we can improve our technical plant, we can leverage the efforts
of our people so that this same high quality of service can be
provided with greater, in spite of the staffing limitations we
face.
To me, Bill is suggesting that future direction should not be
toward achieving higher and higher capacity with the present
approach. Rather, he is suggesting a fundamental examination of
the approach we are using, because new directions appear to offer
important benefits.
There are several components of the directions that Bill is
suggesting. One of them is increasing use of off-the-shelf
technology that can be achieved by basing designs on industry
practice rather than custom-tailoring to meet a specific
requirement. An objection to this approach is to state that
"there isn't anything in the commercial world that does the job
we want". The answer to that objection is "change your system
design so that it can be built with commercial components". This
approach requires a different attitude at the very beginning of a
project--the search for applicable technology, and the clever use
of that technology to solve our problems. If there are indeed
Agency-unique aspects to a requirement, our challenge is to find
a way to accomodate those needs within a framework of off-the-
shelf technology.
The benefits of making maximum use of commercial technology
are well demonstrated--dramatically lower system implementation
and maintenance costs, continued performance improvement with
development cost because of product improvements made by vendors,
improved reliability because of wider testing, dramatically
Administrative/Internal Use Only
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89G00643R001100040026-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89G00643R001100040026-3
SUBJECT: Think Piece - "Cables"
It is true that multi-national firms have established highly
sophisticated communications networks. Then again, most of these
25X1 companies don't have branch offices We are
constrained from taking full advantage of commercial solutions by
the very nature of our business.
25X1
25X1
25X1
-- We can't rely exclusively upon commercial communications
networks.
This limits our network to
slow-speed (2400 baud and less) transmission circuits.
There is an initiative under consideration to augment
Government-owned satellites with commercial satellite
communications.
-- We require an exceptional level of security in our
communications systems. Unlike our data processing
systems, the computers used for communications are allowed
to talk simultaneously to systems operating at different
security levels. Because most of our circuits are
encrypted, we also need to have handshaking with the
encryption gear. Needless to say, these are not features
found in most commercial products.
In the case of some stations, there just isn't bandwidth
affable to take on applications other than narrative messages.
I agree that we should buy, not build, components for our
communications networks, where possible, even if we have to make
a considerable investment to bring the systems up to our
standards. Unless I'm mistaken, this is the principal direction
25X1 in both OC and OIT.
I do not believe that it would be worthwhile to press for the
wholesale replacement of our narrative message applications with
commercial products. We should be building better bridges
between our narrative message applications and our office
automation systems. We should be pursuing applications which can
take advantage of the new capabilities offered by MERCURY. We
should also be investing in the backbone network so that we can
support those new applications. But the cable is far from
25X1 obsolete and will be around for quite years to come.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89G00643R001100040026-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89G00643R001100040026-3
SUBJECT: Think Piece - "Cables"
with good reason, we are making progress in aping automation
25X1 to enhance our communications with the field. ply
Changes in technology at Headquarters and in the field have
blurred the distinction between the traditional narrative message
and a document stored within an office automation system. A
cable has become a specialized form of electronic document,
deriving its cachet from processes which occur in our message
25X1 processing applications.
It is far simpler to replace technology than to change the
way we do business. We are utterly dependent upon the narrative
message, just as the commercial world relies heavily upon the
Telex. This dependency is based upon solid requirements:
-- We are required by law to keep records of our
communications with the field. Commercial office
automation systems are more oriented towards informal
communications and the design seldom takes records
management into consideration.
-- We require that our communications with the field include
a auditable mechanisms for authorizing the release of a
message. This is simply a prudent business practice. The
lack of such features in commercial systems compelled us
to develop a "home-grown" electronic mail system for use
within the less demanding Headquarters environment.
-- We must disseminate messages arriving at Headquarters
based upon content. Commercial solutions assume that the
sender is capable of specifying the recipients. Even if
we were to make greater use of off-the-shelf products, we
would retain the requirement for contextual dissemination.
This is also one of the areas of greatest investment.
To satisfy these requirements, we would still have to "roll our
own" applications or substantially enhance the vendor's
applicatip In fact, this is precisely what is happening with
MERCURY.
While we are exploring commercial solutions for specialized
problems not involving record communications, the narrative
message still appears to be the best vehicle for communicating
with the field. Our efforts in building bridges between the
narrative message and office automation systems has been quite
modest, and we would probably benefit from a higher level of
25X1 investment.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89G00643R001100040026-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89G00643R001100040026-3
28 July 1987
NOTE FOR:
FROM:
Your paper was quite stimulating. It also provided the
impetus for me to learn more about our foreign networks. Your
points seem to make sense, but gloss over several major issues.
(U)
There are two themes in your paper:
-- Let's employ commercial, off-the-shelf technology wherever
possible in our communications networks; and
-- Taking the first point a step further, in our
communications between Headquarters and the field, we
should abandon our emphasis upon the traditional narrative
message in favor of direct communications among office
automation and host-based systems.
The Agency is aggressively pursuing the use of commercial
solutions for our field communications. The MERCURY Program
provides a good example. Of the six major pieces, two are
essentially off-the-shelf products. Two more are commercial
products that were enhanced to solve problems peculiar to secure
networks. The remaining two pieces are custom-built, computer
applications. Similar approaches are being followed in the
enhancements to the underlying transmission systems. (U)
MERCURY also brings a significant architectural change to our
field communications -- the network is separated from the
application, thus allowing the introduction of new applications.
In this sense, we are in the midst of providing the foundation
necessary to do some of the things that you have suggested. (U)
As for office automation, efforts are underway to provide a
direct link between our Wang systems in the field and the message
switching applications. The CRAFT-TERP interface is being tested
While it is true that we are moving slowly, perhaps
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89G00643R001100040026-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89G00643R001100040026-3
C-O-N-F-I-D-E-N-T-I-A-L
29 July 1987
NOTE FOR:
FROM:
The discussion thus far has covered most facets of the
problem and done very well at that. I would like to add a
slightly different wrinkle. I believe that there will probably
always be a requirement to process cables pretty much the way we
do them today, with the command and control and rigorous audit
capability. However, it is important to recognize that the
Agency cable system handles much more than command and control.
In fact, I would venture a guess that administrative cables are a
significant portion of the cable load. Examples which come to
mind are credit union transactions, pouch manifests, Electronic
Time and Attendance, travel notifications, PAR's etc. As the
capacity and capability of the message processing systems
improved, these items which had been handled via, pouch were added
to the cable system for electrical transmission.
Most of these administrative exchanges are data base
updates or file transfers and are more suited to either an
interactive or E-mail environment. If customers were offered the
capability to perform these services interactively or via E-mail
and they perceived an improvement in service, they would use it.
Furthermore, if service was significantly better and all of
the security/reliability measures were provided, customers would
demand the same level of service for cables.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89G00643R001100040026-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89G00643R001100040026-3
29 July 1987
25X1
25X1
LOA I
NOTE FOR:
FROM:
I have just a couple of quick, short comments for people to
ponder and I won't get involved in detailed discussion. Some of
the reasons for 'cable' traffic involve legal and accountability
issues. In concert the DDO has an issue with 'command and
control' to the overseas stations/bases. From a cryptographic
security standpoint point-to-point or end-to-end keying is a
policy long held by this Agency the correctness of which has just
been reaffirmed by the Walker-Whitworth espionage case. There
are also certain traffic the DCI has guaranteed the privacy of to
the highest level of the U.S. Govt.
C-O-N-F-I-D-E-N-T-I-A-L
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89G00643R001100040026-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89G00643R001100040026-3
29 July 1987
NOTE FOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT: Think Piece - "Cables"
Excellent, David! You have really been thinking about this
"think piece", which was its purpose. We may arrive at different
conclusions, but that is fine too.F__1
You say I have two themes. You are correct that the main
thesis was "buy, don't build", however, I did NOT propose we do
away with narrative traffic. In fact, I scrupulously tried to
avoid suggesting an alternate architecture hoping the reader
would focus on our current system instead of beating up on some
half baked proposal of mine.
To assist your mental processes I did suggest that we have
remained with a roll-your-own telagraphy architecture, while
private industry has moved to a commercial based interactive
architecture in some cases and other companies have gone to an
networked host-to-host E-mail architecture. I did my best,
however, not to advocate either in the paper. One reader
believed I was advocating an interactive architecture and
explained at length why we could not do that. You in turn
believe I am advocating an E-mail architecture which requires us
to abandon our traditional narrative traffic along with 'command
& control', record copies, etc. The paper advocated neither.
Actually I believe we should accommodate both modern
architectures where it makes sense. Where we have the bandwidth
and the requirements we should provide interactive service. We
are doing that today with DESIST. In more cases an E-mail
architecture makes more sense today. I do believe that
commercial networking & vendor E-mail software can serve as a
foundation and that our special requirements can be accommodated
on top of that without rebuilding the entire thing from scratch.
I do not believe that adoption of a commercial approach to life
precludes 'command & control', record copies, etc. as you seem to
suggest. I believe you have also concluded that is what Mercury
has done. Fair enough.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/10: CIA-RDP89G00643R001100040026-3