[2600] Comments for P.COMMS.NO_BRIDGE and .O.COMMS.NO_BRIDGE

[UEDA Shigeru <ueda.shigeru@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I believe the content of this comment was already mentioned in Ron's
comment named "Sharp-comments_PP-28b",comment No.5-5),

"P.COMMS.NO_BRIDGE requires an interface rejecting malicious connection
to the other interface. Requiring P.COMMS.NO_BRIDGE means that HCD is
required to have a function that an interface connects to the other
interface"

But I am not sure what the conclusion was, so I would like to raise this
issue again.

I am not sure other vendors are, but  Canon's MFP does not have function
to bridge between telephone line and Ethernet.
Our MFP does not have function to bridge USB to ethernet also.

But if P.COMMS.NO_BRIDGE means that HCD is required to have a security 
function to prevent a interface not to bridge to the other interface
caused by any attack, we will have to have this bridge function to
implement this security function because MFP conforming to PP have to
have all the security function (SFR) in it in the CC world. 

But it is obviously ridiculous.

I agree that some MFP may have this bridge function.
However, it can be mentioned in it's ST if it has.

So I would like to propose to remove P.COMMS.NO_BRIDGE and .O.COMMS.NO_BRIDGE from
PP because it makes confusion.

Regards.

Shigeru Ueda Canon