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

["Apted, Tony J. [RA]" <ANTHONY.J.APTED@saic.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. 
> 

Looking at this algorithm, I think the only requirement for publishing as
final is complete silence from the community, which isn't necessarily the
same as complete consensus.

> 
> 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.   
> 

Out of curiosity, I had a quick look at the UK and Australian scheme sites a
day or two after RI 137 was published on the CCEVS site. I couldn't find any
information or links for International Interpretations on other site, so I
wonder how those schemes keep their communities informed in the absence of
commoncriteria.org.