CC 2.1 and CC 3.0 (february 2005 version) differ in their structure. PPs conformant to CC 2.1 widely exist, and at least CC 3.0 versions of some of them are needed in forthcoming evaluations.
There are numerous differences between 2.1 and 3.0 concerning the writing of ST and PP. Both structural and technical differences exist. SFR differ. The conformance claims have evolved. And so on.
Is it possible to cross the chasm between 2.1 and 3.0 without too much difficulties?
Writing a PP or ST is time consuming and costly. There are several presentations in the previous ICCC conferences about these issues. Moreover, the systems being certified are more and more complex therefore bringing up complex PP and ST.
It is possible to solve these complexity issues with 3.0?
Without going into the deep technical points of the CC 3.0, we will propose some directions in PP/ST rewriting that are able to simplify the porting work. One of the main points is to compose small PP together, rather than making one large PP. And then we will take a look at the to be ACO class to identify whether or not extra-work is given.