Re: The reasons of SFP(s) enforcement are not consistent

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

The NIB thanks Yokota for his continued attention to the CC and efforts to 
understand it.  

As with many attempts to define and categorize some arbitrary decisions have to 
be made.  The CC is no different.  It contains what may seem to be arbitrary 
divisions of requirements.  Since FDP_IFF and FDP_IFC are dependent upon each 
other (as are FDP_ACF and FDP_ACC), one could argue that the requirements in 
each of those pairs could be combined into a single requirement.  The NIB would 
not disagree.  However, the NIB believes it is worthwhile to preserve separate 
requirements, if only to emphasize the need for a policy and separate enforcing 
functions and the fact that the two need to be considered separately.  

That being said, the NIB can believe a PP or ST writer could justify having 
only the policy requirement if the enforcing functions were somehow included 
elsewhere.  Such a configuration would need a strong argument.