Core Enterprise Services to the Tactical Edge (CES2TE)

1. Core Enterprise Services to the Tactical Edge(CES2TE) Jennifer Valentine The MITRE Corporation 13 January 2009

2. Overview • Genesis of Current Effort • CES2TE Team/Deliverable Status • Update of Current Work • Tactical Edge Framework • Reference Model Methodology • White Paper Discussion • Way Ahead/Conclusion

3. Genesis of Current Effort • Sponsored by OSD/NII, we are a Joint Focus team comprised of representatives across the DoD • This group was formed as a result of PDM III, section 3.8 • Identified a gap in providing CES to the Tactical user • DoD Components have pursued a number of initiatives to deliver CES to a range of tactical environments • There are many users and environments which continue to lack capabilities and have limited interoperability • We are NOT a PDM III working group

4. CES2TE Charter • From the CES2TE Charter: • Concentrate on the delivery of Core Enterprise Services to the Tactical Edge within the context of the Joint Close Air Support (JCAS) use case. • Review and assess DoD Component architectures, service definitions, technical specifications, and deployment of Core Enterprise Services to the Tactical Edge. • Develop reference models that map JCAs to mission threads • Business, Service, Performance and Technical Reference Models

5. CES2TE Teams/Deliverable Status

6. CES2TE Current Efforts • Socialized Tactical Edge Framework across DoD • Captured and Developed CES2TE Reference Model Methodology • Developed draft reference models that map JCAs to mission threads • Capability Gap Analysis/Data Call Validation of PORs • Initially focusing on six PORs/initiatives/enterprise capabilities: • NCES, NECC, AOC-WS, FCS, CANES, MCEITS • Identify overlap/gaps in the delivery of CES • Develop a White Paper which outlines: • Conclusions/Recommendations from Data Call Validation/Interviews with PORs • Methodology of focus team • Reference Models 6 6

7. CES2TE “Boundary of the Tactical Edge” Everything forward of a deployed tactical network’s DISN POP/SDN might be considered the “tactical edge” from an enterprise services (and communications transport) perspective. As with tactical unit boundaries, the contours of the tactical edge will vary by Service, mission, phase of an operation, bandwidth availability, and other factors (both technical and non-technical). The CES delivery architecture will necessarily be tiered, with bandwidth availability and organizational boundaries as major factors defining the tiers. The lowest tiers of the “tactical edge,” including dismounted users, will draw upon CES. Delivery approaches should be tailored to their limited bandwidth and intermittent connectivity and reflective of their "disadvantaged" status, especially relative to equipment. 7

8. Tactical Edge Framework Overview • Edge not effectively described by a single environment, but instead by a set of environments • Each describes “layer” of edge further from the GIG core (infrastructure) • Framework defines these layers with emphasis on data and services

9. Tactical Edge Framework Tactical Edge Environments Characterization Attributes minimal to no constraints moderate constraints severe constraints color coding not applicable

10. Applying the Framework • Goal: Promote a coherent approach across diverse DoD Service implementations • Socialize Tactical Edge Framework • Validate the Tactical Edge Framework through application and experimentation • Apply lessons learned back into Tactical Edge Framework • Support adoption of the Tactical Edge Framework by DoD Programs

12. White Paper Discussion • Developed White Paper Outline for CES2TE effort • Intent was to be “building block” for future work • Conducted analysis of Services main PORs/initiatives to determine what CES they are scheduled to deploy • Identify any gaps/overlaps and interdependencies of programs to include in overall report • Met with main PORs/initiatives • NECC, NCES, CANES, FCS, AOC-WS, MCEITS • Standardized list of questions for each group • Attempt to validate information, identify gaps, dependencies, architectural products from programs • Goal: Provide a set of conclusions/recommendations for DoD in terms of Enterprise Services

13. Conclusions from Capability Gap Analysis • A gap within/throughout the tactical edge does exist • The decision to eliminate NCES Increment 2 left significant gaps in deploying and developing services to the tactical edge • The DoD community needs a way of understanding the full range of CES and implementations across the Services, not just the main PORs • Quality of Service requirements need to be addressed

14. Recommendations from Capability Gap Analysis • Enforce the provisions of DoD 8320.02: • Strict governance procedures are needed to ensure interoperability • Portfolio Managers need to ensure PORs are delivering interoperable CES across Components. • Community as a whole should identify ES “best practices” for service development • A federated reference architecture is needed for Enterprise Service development and deployment • To comply with DoD 8320.02 • Assures interoperability for separately developed variants of core enterprise services

15. Way Ahead/ Conclusion • White Paper completed and posted to Intellipedia Site • Official vetting for “Boundary of Tactical Edge” • Apply Reference Model Methodology to capability mapping • Enterprise Service community should address report to prevent potential interoperability issues

16. Points of Contact • Myra Powell • Myra.powell@disa.mil • Rudy Morrison • Rodolph.morrison@osd.mil • 703-602-0363 • Jennifer Valentine • jvalentine@mitre.org • 703-983-3888 Link to wiki: https://www.intelink.gov/sites/es2te/default.aspx

17. Questions?