[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [openc2-imple] RE: [Non-DoD Source] [openc2-imple] STIX COA Roadmap
I think I should clarify my statement
“For automated COAs, the group discussed using OpenC2 if the timelines align.“ I meant that if STIX COA is being targeted for 2.1 which is being wrapped up soon, that timeline doesn’t align with OpenC2’s formal release. Having said that, as per the design being worked out in the google
doc, the COA will still have an optional property for openc2 as a placeholder. Hope that clarifies. Thanks, Jyoti Technical Leader, CTO office Security Business Group, Cisco Systems Inc. From: <openc2-imple@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of "Kemp, David P" <dpkemp@radium.ncsc.mil> I have no objections to the list of 5 features to pursue. It looks like a great list. Re Jyoti’s “For automated COAs, the group discussed using OpenC2 if the timelines align.“:
I’d like to reiterate the discussion on OpenC2 IC SC slack – there is no inconsistency or mismatch between the capabilities of the current OpenC2 and the ability to support those 5 features, or any future set of COA features. Those
features can be supported whenever the evolving COA language (bash/python/etc near-term, potentially a to-be-developed COA-specific DSL longer term) can do so. OpenC2 is used for the atomic M2M actions specified in the COA. With a suitable “notification”
actuator profile OpenC2 might also be used to support some non-automated actions, but that is not it’s primary focus. Dave From: openc2-imple@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:openc2-imple@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Duncan Bret, Jyoti, Re: "If no negative feedback is given we will take that as unanimous consent" I would like to give some negative feedback. Sorry to break your unanimity but I have a concern. Bret said "OpenC2 might be an option. However, to date, the OpenC2 work has had a very narrow focus." Bret, you are co-chair of the OpenC2 SC that owns solving OpenC2 for Stix COA. Joyti is co-chair of the OpenC2 SC that owns defining what OpenC2 consumers do with OpenC2. For you to imply on a CTI mailing list that OpenC2 won't meet CTI
needs seems odd to me. I am very concerned miscommunication is occurring. Shouldn't you as co-chair of the OpenC2 SC be answering that OpenC2 will at least try to meet CTI needs? Of course we need to walk before we fly but if there are schedule concerns, please
voice them. I have been trying to speed up the process eg my request your OpenC2 SC meet more often than monthly. If we are going too slow, the answer is not to duplicate effort in CTI or form a new SC or TC to do what we already doing. Put those resources
into OpenC2. iPhone, iTypo, iApologize Duncan Sparrell sFractal Consulting, LLC The closer you look, the more you see
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:27 PM -0400, "Bret Jordan" <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com> wrote:
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]