... but then, all of the X millions of pieces of existing content would still exist with that object, so you would now still have to write multiple signature patterns to capture things reliably in any message context.
-
Jason Keirstead
STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
www.ibm.com/security | www.securityintelligence.com
Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - UnknownTrey Darley ---07/08/2016 08:32:53 AM---On 08.07.2016 08:22:00, Jason Keirstead wrote: > If we make an email object now, and then in the fut
From: Trey Darley <trey@kingfisherops.com>
To: Jason Keirstead/CanEast/IBM@IBMCA
Cc: "Kirillov, Ivan A." <ikirillov@mitre.org>, "cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 07/08/2016 08:32 AM
Subject: Re: [cti-cybox] MVP/Message Objects
Sent by: <cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org>[attachment "signature.asc" deleted by Jason Keirstead/CanEast/IBM]On 08.07.2016 08:22:00, Jason Keirstead wrote:
> If we make an email object now, and then in the future decide we
> should have made a base Message object with an Email extension -
> wouldn't that require a new major release because we'd be removing
> an object?
>
Hey, Jason -
In that case (which is speculative, mind, a not a given), we could
update the normative text to deprecate the initial MVP Email object in
favor of the New Thing without requiring a major release.
--
Cheers,
Trey
++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++
Kingfisher Operations, sprl
gpg fingerprint: 85F3 5F54 4A2A B4CD 33C4 5B9B B30D DD6E 62C8 6C1D
++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++
--
"In protocol design, perfection has been reached not when there is
nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
--RFC 1925