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

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

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:16:42 -0500 (EST), "Arnold, James L. Jr."
<JAMES.L.ARNOLD.JR@saic.com> said: 

> I generally agree with Dan, but I think there is a problem with the
> requisite advertising. Some useful information comes across this mailing
> list, in some cases information that should be preserved indefinitely (e.g.,
> CCEVS policies). However, I often wonder how many people are actually
> subscribed. 

A fair number. One used to be able to get a list of subscribers, but I'm
willing to bet that ability is now gone. Perhaps Gary, who is the list owner,
can give us just the names. I have seen numerous international participants,
and many folks from labs and FFRDS, although many of the folks I know that
read the list do not comment on it.

> Given that NIB interpretations are only optional and there has
> been no public announcement of treating international interpretations on
> this forum, I don't think it reasonable to assume that there are lots of
> subscribers or that the subscribers come from all of the applicable
> audiences.

Well, you didn't have the guarantee even with commoncriteria.org, or even the
older Interpretations and Criteria forums in the Dockmaster days. That's why
you have these things developed by senior experts.

And, although NIB interpretations are now only optional, many joined the list
when they were not. And, even though optional, they hopefully capture useful
guidance that helps evaluators and validators with questions that arise.

Lastly, I hope the CCIMB continues to use a mailing list approach (with
archives) in the future. 

> While it is unfortunate that the CC.org site went away, I wonder if it is
> possible to reclaim any data related to that site. For example, the CC
> mailing lists would be a good place to make announcements of relevant
> changes or interim solutions.

Well, in the volumnious collection of the NIB background packages, I have all
of the comments posted on the commoncriteria.org forums, for the NIB reviewed
those. I also have drafts that were posted, although the CCIMB should already
have those in their database.

> Even the CCEVS site (despite it recent rework - much to the dismay to anyone
> who had links to any pages other than the top, such as the validated product
> list) does not provide or hides information that might be useful or point to
> useful information. Take a look at "what's new" - apparently not much. What
> about international interpretations where the link was to CC.org, and then
> dead, and now suddenly has some (albeit not all the info that was in CC.org)
> international interpretation drafts, etc.? This is not readily evident when
> casually browsing the CCEVS pages...

I cannot speak to the entire CCEVS site; I only generate the PUBLIC and PD
sections. All of the links to the International interpretations that I had in
the stuff I generate is wrong. Once the new site comes up, I'll be correcting
that information.

Daniel