Re: Possible request for interpretation: low-level design doc questio ns

Subject: Re: Possible request for interpretation: low-level design doc questio ns
From: "Daniel P. Faigin" <faigin@solarium.aero.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:13:39 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <3C640100.43542C1A@saic.com>
References: <3C5FDF91.14234.4EA974F1@localhost> <3C640100.43542C1A@saic.com>


On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 08:56:44 -0800, James Arnold <James.L.Arnold.Jr@saic.com>
said: 

> Item 3 - I'm not surprised that the NIB defines "TSF" to be exactly the
> definition of "TCB" as it evolved during the use of the TCSEC.

Although you seem to ascribe a motive here, the NIB's definition of TSF comes
straight from the CC, Part 1, Section 2, page 7.

Daniel

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Possible request for interpretation: low-level design doc questio ns
  - From: James Arnold <James.L.Arnold.Jr@saic.com>

References:
- Re: Possible request for interpretation: low-level design doc questio ns
  - From: "NIAP Interpretations Board" <ccevs-nib@nist.gov>
- Re: Possible request for interpretation: low-level design doc questio ns
  - From: James Arnold <James.L.Arnold.Jr@saic.com>

Prev by Date: NIB responses to cc-cmt questions
Next by Date: Re: Purpose and Use of the cc-cmt List
Prev by thread: Re: Possible request for interpretation: low-level design doc questio ns
Next by thread: Re: Possible request for interpretation: low-level design doc questio ns

Date Index | Thread Index | Problems or questions? Contact list-master@nist.gov