Re: New ETR Format (LabGram#027)

["YOKOTA HIROFUMI" <yokota-hirofumi@jqa.jp>]

Please discard my improper wording "some validators never see ETRs".
This wording is incorrect. It is extreme and too subjective.

I apologize this.
And, I trust, all of your responses are true.

Well, I do not intend to point out any specific validators and schemes in
the statement.

I thought validators would select samples of workunit for the their
examination of ETRs.
I expressed about this in the message as the following.

"Probably, they may have a valid reason for doing so, and I may agree with
the reason 100% by the cases."

I think, the same situation is well expressed by Mr. Arnold, James L. Jr.

> While I don't support the rumor that CCEVS validators do not look at ETRs,
I
> do tend to believe that the degree of ETR and also Evaluation Evidence
> review on the part of validators depends on the specific validator. They
> each seem to have areas that they are especially interested in and other
> areas that they don't seem to care as much about.

My concern, I still raise this, is that CEM requirements and the guidance on
ETR are very good, but the requirementst seem exceed feasible efforts of
evaluators, when the ST size becomes large.

I would say that evaluators do not select workunits, but describe rationales
for all of them(workunits).

So, I think, for evaluators, to know more clearly the expectaion of
validators on the degree of extent of description would be beneficial for
the cases when the efforts seems overly exceed.

I thought, the new guidance does that.
But, I thought, it could be still refined.

I think, Mr. Arnold, James L. Jr. has well expressed the issue.

I am very sorry for my poor English.

Regards,

Yokota

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel P. Faigin" <faigin@solarium.aero.org>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <cc-cmt@nist.gov>
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 12:58 AM
Subject: New ETR Format (LabGram#027)


>
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 02:46:56 -0500 (EST), "YOKOTA HIROFUMI"
> <yokota-hirofumi@jqa.jp> said:
>
> > So, I halfly believe a rumor that some validators never see ETRs
> > (particularly for ASE), but instead judge the evaluation by seeing the
ST
> > directly by himself, and by checking WHO the ST author is.
>
> >From my experience in CCEVS, the above is not true. One needs the
information
> in the ETR to develop the table of verdict assessments. A validator will
read
> the ST, but will do so only to ensure that their comments have been found
by
> the evaluation team, thus checking that the evaluation team is reviewing
it as
> well.
>
> Daniel
>
>