Re: I-0464: Conditional Requirements

["NIAP Interpretations Board" <faigin@aero.org>]

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.