I was asked for a re-worded definition for XBD 3.104. Here it is:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.104 Extended Security Controls
Implementation-dependent security controls allowed by the file access
permission (see Section 3.110 on page 45) and appropriate privilege (see
Section 3.12 on page 28) mechanisms, through which an implementation can support
different security policies from those described in IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've removed the last sentence, which should alleviate Donn's objection.
Of course, that sentence was just added in this draft, presumably as the
result of a Draft 1 objection, sooooo....
I note that the last sentence was not only controversial, but in conflict with
the explicit normative text on page 9, Section 2.1.1, Lines 313-320, which
explicitly allows what this sentence was trying to disallow, and lays out the
conditions under which standard functions' semantics MAY change as the result
of implementation-dependent extensions, and when they SHALL NOT, in the much
more general case. This sentence should be restored only if we want these
particular extensions to be treated differently from the general ones detailed
in 2.1.1.
Sincerely,
Frank Prindle
yyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
|