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

[Cedric Le Roux <cleroux@splunk.com>]

Hello,

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

Do you agree with using CIDR notation as the only supported syntax for IP addresses? Yes

Do you think we need other Objects for capturing ATM address and net masks? No, but nothing prevent us to create those objects in a later iteration as objects becomes atomic.

Thanks,

Cedric

From: <cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of "Kirillov, Ivan A." <ikirillov@mitre.org>
Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 5:35 PM
To: "cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [cti-cybox] CybOX 3.0: Address Object Refactoring

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