|
Date: |
04/04/2005 |
|
Subject: |
Sequencing of sub-activities |
|
Status |
Final |
|
CC Part #1 Reference: |
|
|
CC Part #2 Reference: |
|
|
CC Part #3 Reference: |
|
|
CEM Reference: |
CEM, Annex B.4.2 |
Issue
The CEM is misleading on
whether a
pass verdict on a sub-activity can be assigned if all sub-activities on
which
it has a dependency are successfully completed. This leads to trouble
with
sequencing ASE_INT and ASE_DES who have a circular dependency.
CEM para 1801 and further: "Dependencies identified between components
in
CC Part 3 have to be considered by the evaluator. An example for this
kind of
dependency is AVA_VLA.1. This component claims dependencies on
ADV_FSP.1,
ADV_HLD.1, AGD_ADM.1 and AGD_USR.1. A sub-activity can be assigned a
pass
verdict normally only if all those sub-activities are successfully
completed on
which it has a dependency. For example, a pass verdict on AVA_VLA.1 can
normally only be assigned if the sub-activities related to ADV_FSP.1,
ADV_HLD.1, AGD_ADM.1 and AGD_USR.1 are assigned a pass verdict too."
Consider the following example (VLA): Two evaluators are both given a
functional specification, a high-level design, the
administrator and user guidance and are asked to evaluate AVA_VLA.1
based on
these documents. One evaluator is told that all sub-activities related
to
ADV_FSP.1, ADV_HLD.1, AGD_ADM.1 and AGD_USR.1 are assigned a pass
verdict. The
other evaluator is told that they haven't been assigned a pass verdict.
Why can't the second pass the sub-activity as the
document input
is the same?
Interpretation
Performing a sub-activity
can be
done regardless of the pass/fail status of other sub-activities that
that
sub-activity has a dependency on. However, given that:
-
evaluation of an input may uncover errors in that input
- errors in that input will normally lead to changes in that input
- the sub-activity may have to be redone whenever one of the inputs
from
dependencies changes
some sequences of sub-activities may
have to be repeated.
Specific Changes
CEM, Annex B.4.2 is
changed as
follows:
Note
that
some components from the CC, such as ASE_INT and ASE_DES have a
dependency on
each other, and that therefore this problem occurs for every sequence
of
performing the related sub-activities.
Rationale
This interpretation clarifies
the evaluator needs to consider the results of dependent sub-activities
if a
flaw is detected during a given sub-activity.