> 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 withdrawn before it was formally completed.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
to that.
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?
Yes.
Quote:> I can't seem to find any information on-line explaining why the withdraw
> occured.
There it is, strait from the (old, bent backed) horse's mouth.
--
Casey Schaufler Manager, Trust Technology, SGI
by