RE: [security-services] FW: Guidelines on Conformance Clauses

["Scott Cantor" <cantor.2@osu.edu>]

> On the other hand, Encrypted Mode is an extension of Basic Mode (see
> line 336 of CD-03) so I don't see how it's possible to support
> Encrypted Mode without supporting Basic Mode in some sense.

Yes, but it's the "some sense" that causes the problems. All of these
profiles that amount to knob turning on existing functionality can only be
thought of, IMHO, as representing a set of options that products would
enable as a unit. Otherwise they wouldn't need to exist at all (as I've
argued repeatedly).

Therefore, it's quite possible to "support" only one of these modes, since
it's all down to what you expose to the deployer as an option set.

I'd avoid worrying about what is formally a superset of the other and just
treat them as independent units of conformance.

-- Scott