[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti-cybox] vocabulary items in cybox network extensions
>> Should these vocabularies we converted to our "standard" and thus changed to use a dash? No. These vocabularies are very standardized across implementations of Berkeley sockets on Unix and Windows, so I do not think we should be replacing underscores with dashes, as this will
make string comparisons more difficult. It’s also highly likely that we will have to make other exceptions like this in the future. Regards, Ivan From:
<cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Bret Jordan <bret.jordan@bluecoat.com> In the Network Socket Extension we have three controlled vocabularies listed. It looks like the items from this list may have come from something like glibc or something. Our normal document conventions is to have vocabulary terms separated
with a dash not an underscore. All of these terms in these vocabularies have underscores. Should these vocabularies we converted to our "standard" and thus changed to use a dash? 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]