Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!midway!gargoyle!ddsw1!olsa99!ctk1!undeed!ucthpx!oct1!mason
From: mason@oct1.UUCP (David Mason)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Unix & X-Windows on 386SX
Message-ID: <1990Dec3.160902.19590@oct1.UUCP>
Date: 3 Dec 90 16:09:02 GMT
Reply-To: mason@oct1.UUCP (David Mason)
Organization: Open Computer Technology
Lines: 21

In article <2318@tabbs.UUCP> aris@tabbs.UUCP (Aris Stathakis) writes:
>What's wrong with that is that it isn't C2.  The C2 standard states that
>it must be included in the product, and you cannot have the same product
>without the C2 security - or else it does not constitute C2.

I'm having a hard time swallowing this one.  In the list of optional
extensions for ISC 2.2 is the Security Extension, which "contains files
needed to raise .... [ 2.2 ] .... to C2".  (As an aside, what a BRILLIANT
idea to make this and *Optional* Extension.  Viva, ISC, Viva).  But
according to Aris' statement, this is not correct, so ISC just wasted N
(where N is a large number) man hours porting this extension.

My faith in ISC is such that I cannot believe that they would do that. 
Aris, can you back up your claims with some quotes from a definitive
reference, such as the orange book?
--------------------
David Mason                       | "Strange the mind, 
mason@oct1.UUCP                   |    that very fiery particle,
"olsa99!oct1!mason"@ddsw1.MCS.COM |  Should let itself be snuffed out
...!ddsw1!olsa99!oct1!mason       |     by an article."       Byron