[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti-cybox] Formalizing Consensus - CybOX
If there are any further comments on these entities, please let us know. Otherwise, we will move them out to DRAFT status. Regards, Ivan From:
<cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Ivan Kirillov <ikirillov@mitre.org> A few updates on these items:
o
Added normative text around the corresponding specification/RFC that the hash value must conform to ·
NTFS File Extension: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DdS-NrVTjGJ3wvCJ7dbSlhYeiaWS6G6dOXu2F3POpUs/edit#heading=h.o6cweepfrsci
o
Updated size field to be a non-negative integer ·
PDF File Extension: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DdS-NrVTjGJ3wvCJ7dbSlhYeiaWS6G6dOXu2F3POpUs/edit#heading=h.fyl99becfz8j
o
Updated the document_information_dictionary field to be of type dictionary rather than a separate type ·
URL Object: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DdS-NrVTjGJ3wvCJ7dbSlhYeiaWS6G6dOXu2F3POpUs/edit#heading=h.ah3hict2dez0
o
Added normative text around value field conforming to a particular character set
o
Added embedded relationship (redirects_to_ref) ·
Domain Name Object: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DdS-NrVTjGJ3wvCJ7dbSlhYeiaWS6G6dOXu2F3POpUs/edit#heading=h.prhhksbxbg87
o
Added embedded relationships (resolves_to_ref, redirects_to_ref) ·
Registry Key Object:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DdS-NrVTjGJ3wvCJ7dbSlhYeiaWS6G6dOXu2F3POpUs/edit#heading=h.luvw8wjlfo3y
o
Refactored creator_username field to an embedded relationship (creator_ref) that points to a User Account Object Please review the above changes if you get a chance, so that we can move these items out to DRAFT status. Also, based on previous feedback (or lack thereof) the following Objects have been moved out to DRAFT status: ·
X509 Certificate Object ·
Mutex Object Regards, Ivan From:
<cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Ivan Kirillov <ikirillov@mitre.org> If there are any additional comments on these review items, please let us know ASAP. If not, we’ll assume that we have consensus and move these out to DRAFT status. regards, Ivan From:
<cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Ivan Kirillov <ikirillov@mitre.org> We’ve had a few comments on the Registry Key Object, including on last Thursday’s call, and consensus seemed to be that we should allow users to keep case in registry keys (via
the key field). Otherwise, not many comments so far; I think we could especially use review and comments on the following: NTFS File Extension: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DdS-NrVTjGJ3wvCJ7dbSlhYeiaWS6G6dOXu2F3POpUs/edit#heading=h.o6cweepfrsci PDF File Extension: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DdS-NrVTjGJ3wvCJ7dbSlhYeiaWS6G6dOXu2F3POpUs/edit#heading=h.fyl99becfz8j URL Object: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DdS-NrVTjGJ3wvCJ7dbSlhYeiaWS6G6dOXu2F3POpUs/edit#heading=h.ah3hict2dez0 We’d like to close the comment period for these entities this Thursday, May 12th. Regards, Ivan From:
<cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Ivan Kirillov <ikirillov@mitre.org> I just added basic examples to each of the “Review” items. I agree that the “Draft” items should have a requirement of having examples, so I’ll do that next. Regards, Ivan From:
<cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Bret Jordan <bret.jordan@bluecoat.com> Yes, if you could have a simple JSON example for each of the items under "Review" in preparation of them becoming Draft. That would be really helpful.
Further thinking, maybe we should add that to the requirements of something becoming draft status... It needs to have an example. Thanks, Bret Bret Jordan CISSP
Director of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTO Blue Coat Systems PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050 "Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg."
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]