[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [EXT] [cti-comment] TAXII 2.0 - Remove mentions of Channels
Greg,
We have received your comments on TAXII 2.0 CSDPR01. Thanks for your feedback! The TC maintains a log of all comments received on its work, the document is located here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7Lx_XfGxyzN0T4ze8d-bGiVElYEn4pJL2a_CQs3YmI/edit?usp=sharing
Your comment has been added as comment 2. Again, thank you for your feedback. Bret Jordan and Mark Davidson TAXII SC Chairs From: cti-comment@lists.oasis-open.org <cti-comment@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Back, Greg <gback@mitre.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 8:37:51 AM To: cti-comment@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [EXT] [cti-comment] TAXII 2.0 - Remove mentions of Channels I think there’s pretty broad consensus that a concept like Channels is useful, but they are completely unspecified in TAXII 2.0. I would just remove any mention of them. By analogy, there aren’t “Infrastructure” or “Incident/Event” sections in the STIX 2.0 spec, even though the intention is to include them in STIX 2.1.
There’s no need to “reserve” anything, since there aren’t areas in TAXII that could be extended and potentially conflict with a future specification that includes Channels.
Alternatively, we could leave a single mention in the overview that a “publish-subscribe” paradigm is a valid use case that we are intentionally not pursuing in the TAXII 2.0 specification. I don’t want us
to be unnecessarily backed into a corner with any statements we make about the direction we envision Channels eventually going. Greg |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]