Welcome to CC-CMT

["Interpretations Working Group" <iwg@gibraltar.ncsc.mil>]

[Note: This is a first cut. Hopefully, this will be revised by IWG members,
and will be reposted before each batch of messages]

Welcome to the CC-CMT list, hosted by NIST. This purpose of this list is to
discuss proposed national interpretations under the CCEVS scheme. This list is
managed by the CCEVS Interpretation Working Group (IWG), who is responsible
for developing national interpretations.

This list is moderated; the moderator is Gary Stoneburner of NIST, an IWG
member. This list is for non-proprietary discussions only; proprietary
comments on proposed interpretations should be sent ON 
GIBRALTAR.NCSC.MIL AT
EXTEND_HI to IWG@gibraltar.ncsc.mil

This list is archived; postings are saved in the listproc archive at NIST, and
are also copied into the CCITSE forum on gibraltar, appropriately chained.

Queue entries are posted in two formats: an ascii format, and in Adobe Acrobat
format. 

The following describes the format of IWG queue entries:

Queue Entry Numbers

The queue is a combined database that reflects all of issues investigated by
the IWG during its lifetime (i.e., it includes queue entries that address both
the older TCSEC/TNI/TDI criteria, as well as the current Common Criteria (CC)
and Common Evaluation Methodology). Numbers are assigned as entries are
created in the database, and are normally not reused (although there were some
holes created during the TCSEC era due to duplicate entries). Queue entries
for the Common Criteria started in the low 300s (338 and 339), and then
proceeded sequentially from 346.
  
Header Information

Each entry in the queue has a collection of header information about the queue
entry. Some of the more significant header fields are:

NUMBER 
          Queue Entry number 
STATUS 
          The status of the entry in the queue. Queue entries start as
          unassigned. When they are unassigned, a member of the community can
          volunteer to work with an IWG member to develop a draft. They are
          assigned to an coordinator, who prepares a first draft and brings it
          to the IWG for review.  Once a queue entry is ready, it is put out
          for initial public discussion at both the proprietary (ccinterp
          forum on Gibraltar) and public levels (CCITSE forum on Gibraltar and
          the cc-cmt mailing list). If comments are received, or if problems
          are identified on a subsequent review, it is modified and reposted,
          this time only to a public forum. Occasionally, more significant
          problems are identified in a queue entry. When that happens, the
          entry is pulled back for further rework; after the rework is deemed
          acceptable, it is reposted for public review.  After there has been
          public review and oversight has found no problems with the entry, it
          is ready for approval. If the entry is on the National
          Interpretation track (type I), is it sent to CCEVS management for
          approval. Requests for Interpretation do not require management
          approval; they are simply sent to the appropriate body.  When CCEVS
          management formally approves an entry, it is moved to the approved
          state and forwarded to the CCIMB. Occasionally, approved entries
          will be superseded with a correction or a CCIMB-INTERP; in such
          cases, the queue entry is moved to a superseded state.  When
          reviewing entries, the oversight may identify some issues that it
          determines, upon second thought, to be unnecessary of
          interpretation. Such issues are withdrawn, so that a record is kept
          that the issue was examined. Sometimes, other issues cannot be
          easily resolved and are temporarily tabled.
     TYPE 
          The type of interpretation: (I)nterpretation, (R)equest for
          Interpretation  
     TITLE 
          The title of the interpretation. 
     SOURCE REFERENCE
	  Citations of the criteria sections affected by or related to this
          interpretation. 

ISSUE

This is a short and succinct statement of the issue.

STATEMENT
This is a high-level statement of interpretation.   

SPECIFIC INTERPRETATION

This is a statement of the specific changes to be made to the source criteria
to address this interpretation.   

PROJECTED IMPACT

This identifies the anticipated impact of the interpretation. 
  
SUPPORT

This section is informative, and provides supporting information and rationale
behind the interpretation.