Can we see how pattern would be affected by this?
Thanks,
Bret Bret Jordan CISSPDirector 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."
I would much rather keep these separate. If you comvine them with some kind of "address type" property, it will make patterning very cumbersome vs just having discrete objects. I don't really see how having discrete objects for these two has a downside.
-- Sent from my mobile device, please excuse any typos.Jordan, Bret --- Re: [cti-cybox] IPv4 and IPv6 Address Objects --- There is not really anything from an address perspective that you would extend this with that would not be the same for both. I could see if we were talking about a different protocol other than IP.
I mean you are not going to include anything from the packet headers... The only thing I could think of is if you wanted to say you got the address in IPv4 from DHCP or in IPv6 from stateless or stageful auto-config
Thanks,
Bret Bret Jordan CISSPDirector 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."
We may extend those objects in the future, so it potentially makes sense to keep these separate to allow that to happen. We gain flexibility by keeping them separate. Cheers Terry MacDonald Cosive
|