Re: Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] Location, latitude/longitude, and precision

[richard.shok@usbank.com]

I agree with Bret's point about unspecified
data being unspecified.  Since we cannot know what the actual value
is, we should not be adding that data.  Leave it to the provider to
include it if they have it.  So my opinion is leave it as optional
and only use with a value if it is actually specified by the provider.

Rich Shok 
U.S. Bank - Information Security Services
Threat Intelligence & Automation
612.973.7185 - Office
richard.shok@usbank.com



From:      
 "Struse, Richard
J." <rjs@mitre.org>
To:      
 Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>,
Trey Darley <trey@newcontext.com>
Cc:      
 "Wunder, John
A." <jwunder@mitre.org>, Mark Davidson <Mark.Davidson@nc4.com>,
"cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:      
 07/19/2017 09:04 AM
Subject:    
   [EXTERNAL] Re:
[cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] Location, latitude/longitude, and precision
Sent by:    
   <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>

---

Your opinion is noted. What do others on the list
think?

On 7/19/17, 9:59 AM, "Bret Jordan" <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
wrote:

    I disagree
    Bret 
    
    
    Sent from my iPhone
    
    > On Jul 19, 2017, at 3:39 PM, Trey Darley <trey@newcontext.com>
wrote:
    > 
    >> On 19.07.2017 12:47:55, Struse, Richard J. wrote:
    >> I’ve come to believe that precision should be optional.
The purist
    >> in me wants the text to say that if precision is
omitted, the
    >> precision of the lat/long is unspecified. But I’m
willing to live
    >> with text that says if precision is unspecified,
it defaults to 10km
    >> as John-Mark originally proposed.
    >> 
    > 
    > Thanks, Rich.
    > 
    > I think this is the correct approach.
    > 
    > -- 
    > Cheers,
    > Trey
    > ++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++
    > Director of Standards Development, New Context
    > gpg fingerprint: 3918 9D7E 50F5 088F 823F  018A
831A 270A 6C4F C338
    > ++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++
    > --
    > "No matter how hard you try, you can't make a baby
in much less than 9
    > months. Trying to speed this up *might* make it slower,
but it won't
    > make it happen any quicker." --RFC 1925
    





U.S. BANCORP made the following annotations
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Electronic Privacy Notice. This e-mail, and any attachments, contains information that is, or may be, covered by electronic communications privacy laws, and is also confidential and proprietary in nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you are legally prohibited from retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error, and then immediately delete it. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------