RE: Application TOE SFRs

["Daniel P. Faigin" <faigin@aero.org>]

I'm not 100% sure I understand all of this on a first reading (but I'll get a
second reading). However, I do agree with Jim on the importance of having a
good clear TOE definition (something I find far too many STs lacking -- this
should be resolved before the evaluation starts), and that TOE definition
should agree with the SFRs description of the TOE.

Further, I personally feel that many of the CC's SFRs lead to the confusion
problems that Jim cites, and as I have said many times, I would prefer to have
SFRs that are on the side of clarity (being explicitly specified, if need be),
rather than trying to force fit something just to get a component tag. I think
the force-fitting itself leads to more problems.