> I understand that the Posix.1e (1003.1e) draft standard on security
> interfaces (and it's related standard on security utilities) was
> withdrawn before it was formally completed.
That is correct. I was the final technical editor of the document,
and had the unpleasant task of requesting its withdrawl after
the completion of Draft 17.
Quote:> My question is: why?
In the end, only SGI and IBM cared enough about it to continue
working on it, IBM would not pay for travel, and twice in
Poughkeepsie was all I could handle.
More to the point, standards development fell off
of the list of important things for computer companies
right about 1995, and the security effort fell victem
There where a number of issues with the Draft itself that
didn't help. It should have been five seperate efforts
(ACLs, Audit, Capabilities, Information Labels, MAC)
rather that a single integrated document. The source
for the draft disappeared for a year and was only
partially recovered. Some sections where too ambitious
for their intended purpose. Too much was designed by
the working group.
Quote:> It seems
> like many systems have implemented parts of the draft anyway and there
> seems to be plenty of interest in the facilities Posix.1e was attempting
> to standardize.
In that aspect, the standard effort was a success,
even though the standard was not.
Quote:> Were the reasons for its withdraw technical or political?
Quote:> I can't seem to find any information on-line explaining why the withdraw
There it is, strait from the (old, bent backed) horse's mouth.
Casey Schaufler Manager, Trust Technology, SGI