From nick@pgty.pert.co.uk Fri May 30 08:02:35 1997 Received: from pgty.pert.co.uk (nick@pgty.pert.co.uk [193.129.15.2]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA06559 for ; Fri, 30 May 1997 08:02:33 +0200 Received: (from nick@localhost) by pgty.pert.co.uk (8.7.6/8.7.3) id HAA08713 for sc22wg15@dkuug.dk; Fri, 30 May 1997 07:02:40 +0100 (BST) From: Nick Stoughton Message-Id: <199705300602.HAA08713@pgty.pert.co.uk> Subject: Re: WG15 Project Editing Status - P1003.1e/2c (fwd) To: sc22wg15@dkuug.dk Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 07:02:40 +0100 (BST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Forwarded message from Casey Schaufler ----- From casey@anchovy.engr.sgi.com Thu May 29 18:02:23 1997 Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 10:01:36 -0700 (PDT) From: casey@anchovy.engr.sgi.com (Casey Schaufler) Message-Id: <199705291701.KAA06816@anchovy.engr.sgi.com> To: nick@usenix.org, nick@pert.co.uk Subject: Re: WG15 Project Editing Status - P1003.1e/2c Here is what I believe is our Disposition of Comments.... 10 December, 1996 Bill Rinehuls ISO/IEC/JTC 1 SC22 Mr. Rinehuls, The IEEE POSIX Security Working Group thanks SC22 for the response to the ballots for 9945-1, Amendment 3 Protection, Audit and Control Interfaces (C Languages) and for 9945-2, Amendment 3: Protection and Control Interfaces. Although no Disposition of Comments is required on the comments received, the working group provides a general description of the new draft of these documents and their relationship to the comments received. Draft 16 of these documents will be published and available for comment shortly. The changes are predominately editorial in nature. This new draft should be the one registered in ISO in order to comply with the United States comment on maintaining IEEE/ISO synchronization. The comment accompanying the Netherlands negative vote displayed an understanding of the various standardization efforts taking place throughout JTC 1 in the realm of IT Security, especially that being developed in SC27/WG3 on Evaluation Criteria (CC). * Although consistency is important between these various activities, the amendments provided here are not meant to fully cover all possible IT security functionality but are rather common interfaces and utilities for the most common of these. * The protection amendments in 9945-1 and 9945-2 provided in this draft do not cover all the functionality in the CC but also do not contradict the CC. The amendments allow operating system providers with a standard interface for common IT security functionality without mandating unnecessary implementation details. * The standard does not address assurance measures directly as those are activities that take place on the functions provided. * It was unclear to the working group as to the meaning of the 'Framework' so they cannot address correspondence between the amendments and this framework. Best Regards, Casey Schaufler voice: (415) 933-1634 casey@sgi.com fax: (415) 962-8404 Schaufler@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL ----- End of forwarded message from Casey Schaufler ----- -- Nick Stoughton Director USENIX Stds Editor PERT Systems nick@pert.co.uk nick@usenix.org 01753 776100 +44 1753 776100