[cap-talk] Scholarship of P-1935 (was: Re: P-1935 - on old truth and loss of control)

[Jed Donnelley]

At 08:44 AM 2/2/2008, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
>On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 18:24 -0800, Jed Donnelley wrote:
> > What I was referring to was the fact that the authors did
> > a huge amount of "research" (reading other papers, surveying
> > the field, etc.).  It was only 'scholarly' in that sense.
> > You would know better than I about a more precise definition
> > of "scholarly" in scholarly circles Jonathan.
>
>This is generally insufficient to be considered scholarly. A review
>process is required as well, in order to validate the work. This paper
>didn't get any such review.

Thanks Jonathan.  I'll try to keep that distinction in mind
if I ever again feel a desire to use the term "scholarly".

Regarding P-1935 and more generally the TCSEC, I wonder
why that process wasn't more 'scholarly' and include
wider review.  I wasn't involved, but seeing so many
names on it I expect the authors believed those people
constituted a sort of "review".

Do you know enough about what they went through to
describe how their process differed from a scholarly
review?

I'm just curious.  From my perspective it seems that
so much damage was done by P-1935's interpretation
in the Orange Book that I wonder if their adopting
a more formal review process might have helped?  I
notice, for example, they say in the preface:

"We wish to acknowledge the assistance of Dan Nessett,
Lawrence Livermore Labs; Richard Kain, University of
Minnesota; Norman Hardy, Susan Rajunas, et. al., of
Key logic, Inc.; and Roger Schell of Gemini Computers,
Inc., for their thorough review and critique of the
initial drafts of this paper."

http://www.webstart.com/jed/papers/P-1935/P-1935.pdf

They use the term "review" above, but I guess that
isn't the meaning you give to a 'scholarly review'?
Perhaps the distinction is how the reviewers are
chosen, how they participate, etc.?  I'd be interested
to hear anything you (or others?  E.g. NormH?  BillF?)
know about the process (theirs vs. a more true
'scholarly' review) that might shed some light
on this sort of report could better reflect a
shared 'scholarly' view in future.

Thanks!

--Jed  http://www.webstart.com/jed-signature.html