[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Typo in range of integers
I agree it has the potential to be confusing. I was just trying to recall the explanation for why it was the way it was before we went and changed anything :-) Greg On 2017-06-08, 6:09 PM, "John-Mark Gurney" <jmg@newcontext.com> wrote: Back, Greg wrote this message on Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 03:28 +0000: > Was it because JSON don’t have a separate integer type, so those are the max/min integers that can be represented precisely in IEEE 754? This is likely that case, but it's confusing to talk about a 64-bit value, but then define the range of a 64-bit value as a 54-bit value. If this is the case, we should change the wording, as it stands, the wording is very confusing. Better to say that all integers must be represented as a signed 54-bit value. And then add text about why, and that a 64-bit value for intermediate is fine, but that still means you need to add range checking before/after.. > From: <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of John-Mark Gurney <jmg@newcontext.com> > Date: Monday, June 5, 2017 at 7:38 PM > To: Ivan Kirillov <ikirillov@mitre.org>, "Jordan, Bret" <bret.jordan@bluecoat.com>, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>, Sarah Kelley <sarah.kelley@cisecurity.org> > Subject: [cti-stix] Typo in range of integers > > In Part 1 of STIX, Section 2.6, there is the text: > Unless otherwise specified, all integers MUST be capable of being represented as a signed 64-bit value ([-(2**53)+1, (2**53)-1]). > > It looks like 53 was used instead of 63. Or was this changed for some reason? A signed 64-bit has a larger range that specified here. -- John-Mark
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]