RE: Final Interpretation for RI 137 - Rules governing binding sho uld be specifiable

["Carpenter, Diann" <Diann.Carpenter@cw.com>]

>The normal procedure is:

>1) RI is submitted
>2) Time passess....
>3) The CCIMB publishes a draft
>4) If there are comments on the draft, go to step 2
>5) Publish it as final. As there were no comments on the draft, public 
>review is unnecessary.

So the CCIMB will not publish a draft for final until there is complete consensus from the community? It would seem that some of these would be in a never-ending cycle of review and comment. 

>With the intermezzo between two websites, there is temporarily no 
>publishing forum or input address for comments, and this was not 
>foreseen in the normal procedure.

>We expect to launch the new site on Apr 1. As the next CCIMB meeting is 
>in June I presume that the deadline for comments on the current draft 
>could be extended to end of May or so, which should give anyone enough 
>time for comments.

While it is understood that discontinuing commoncriteria.org was not foreseen, the CCIMB and the Schemes could have used this, or a similar, vehicle in its absence to ensure that the community is kept informed. If the CCIMB has regularly scheduled meetings it would seem that it is likewise reasonable to have a pre-established, published (on this list, all scheme sites etc.) schedule for the review of proposed interpretations and submission of comments.  This allows the community sufficient time to respond and ensures that the CCIMB process steps 3, 4 and 5 provide a true indication of the public consensus for a particular interpretation.