Re: I-0464: Conditional Requirements
- Subject: Re: I-0464: Conditional Requirements
- From: "NIAP Interpretations Board" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 19:30:06 -0700
- Content-description: Mail message body
- Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
- Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
- Priority: normal
- Reply-to: email@example.com
The NIB thanks the participants in this discussion and notes that this is
actually a request for interpretation rather than an existing interpretation
(in any phase of the approval process).
The NIB agrees with MITRE's first observation: to extend the concept of
conditionals to the higher levels of CC organization. The NIB suggests,
however, that the conditional construct be restricted to the component level.
While the conditional construct could be iterated over the elements of each
desired component, such an operation will result in the same verbiage being
added to each element with no gain in understanding. Adding a conditional to
the component would be far more efficient. Syntax similar to the existing
"HIERARCHIAL TO" could be used. As to the higher orders, family and class,
they are merely collections of components. It is the components that "stand on
their own" and are chosen to form PPs and STs. It might be convenient to
"conditionalize" a family or class but not very likely.
In regard to MITRE's second observation suggesting that explanatory text be
added to conditionals when used: it should be pointed out that STs must
identify the operations performed, and the evaluators must check for
consistency in STs. The NIB suggests that this new operation in the CC be
accompanied by text making it clear that STs must clearly state what conditions
were in effect for the application of the conditional operation.
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Problems or questions? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org