FIA_ESTC_EXT.2 is currently listed as an Objective SFR, which is an add-on to its parent requirement, FIA_ESTC_EXT.1. This requirement is already defined in the X.509 functional package, so the definition for FIA_ESTC_EXT.1 will likely be moved to the X.509 package, but its version of FIA_ESTC_EXT.1 does not include a requirement to include a tls-unique value.
Given this information, should this requirement remain as an objective requirement, change to a separate selection-based requirement contingent on selection of EST in FIA_ENR_EXT.1.1, or be removed outright, either due to the requirement being no longer necessary or if the requirement should instead be moved to the X.509 package?
FIA_ESTC_EXT.2 is currently listed as an Objective SFR, which is an add-on to its parent requirement, FIA_ESTC_EXT.1. This requirement is already defined in the X.509 functional package, so the definition for FIA_ESTC_EXT.1 will likely be moved to the X.509 package, but its version of FIA_ESTC_EXT.1 does not include a requirement to include a tls-unique value.
Given this information, should this requirement remain as an objective requirement, change to a separate selection-based requirement contingent on selection of EST in FIA_ENR_EXT.1.1, or be removed outright, either due to the requirement being no longer necessary or if the requirement should instead be moved to the X.509 package?