Re: [cti-cybox] CybOX 3.0: Address Object Refactoring

[Jerome Athias <athiasjerome@gmail.com>]

Does this make sense or not?
> Yes
Which of the options around IP Address specification (option 1 or
option 2) do you prefer?
> Option 2 (Note that simple regexs would avoid the 'Version issue' anyway)
Do you agree with using CIDR notation as the only supported syntax for
IP addresses?
> Ok for me
Do you think we need other Objects for capturing ATM address and net masks?
> I would say no


2015-10-27 19:35 GMT+03:00 Kirillov, Ivan A. <ikirillov@mitre.org>:
> All,
>
> Trey and I have been busy thinking about some ideas around refactoring
> related to CybOX 3.0. The first idea we’d like to propose to you is around
> the refactoring of the Address Object into more atomic entities (as
> discussed in some of the GitHub issues):
> https://github.com/CybOXProject/schemas/wiki/CybOX-3.0:-Address-Object-Refactoring
>
> Let us know your thoughts! In particular we’d love to know:
>
> Does this make sense or not?
> Which of the options around IP Address specification (option 1 or option 2)
> do you prefer?
> Do you agree with using CIDR notation as the only supported syntax for IP
> addresses?
> Do you think we need other Objects for capturing ATM address and net masks?
>
> Regards,
> Ivan and Trey