Re: [cti-stix] RE: Spec Version

[Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>]

I tend to agree that this changes is not necessary but Bret's original question to the list was to non-english speaking individuals that are on the TC list.

Allan Thomson,

CTO, Lookingglass Cyber Solutions

This electronic message transmission contains information from LookingGlass Cyber Solutions, Inc. which may be attorney-client privileged, proprietary and/or confidential. The information in this message is intended only for use by the individual(s) to whom it is addressed.  If you believe that you have received this message in error, please contact the sender, delete this message, and be aware that any review, use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the contents contained within is strictly prohibited.

---

From: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Kelley, Sarah E. <skelley@mitre.org>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 9:29 PM
To: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [cti-stix] RE: Spec Version

 

Just to be clear, the breaking change has already been made. As Bret pointed out, we have actually removed the “spec_version” field from bundle for STIX 2.1. There would be no conflict now if we chose to call it “stix_version”.

 

That being said, I’m ambivalent. It doesn’t matter to me one way or the other. As such, I think it’s probably easier to just keep it the same (aka call it “spec_version”).

 

 

 

Sarah Kelley

Lead Cybersecurity Engineer, T8B2

Defensive Operations

The MITRE Corporation

703-983-6242

skelley@mitre.org

 

From: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Jason Keirstead
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 9:14 AM
To: Katz, Gary <gary.katz.ctr@dc3.mil>
Cc: Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>; cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] RE: Spec Version

 

The problem I have with this is, if we make this change, then either

- We make the same change to the bundle object, which is then a breaking change

- We don't make the same change to the bundle object, and now we have two fields with different names communicating the same thing

This to me is an arbitrary reason to make a breaking change. There are *a lot* of field names in STIX that are not going to make sense to a non-english speaker.

-
Jason Keirstead
Lead Architect - IBM Security Cloud
www.ibm.com/security

"Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who hustle." - Unknown




From:        "Katz, Gary CTR DC3/TSD" <Gary.Katz.ctr@dc3.mil>
To:        Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:        06/29/2018 10:01 AM
Subject:        [cti-stix] RE: Spec Version
Sent by:        <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>

---

Like the idea, agree that stix_version would be clearer.
-G
 
From: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Bret Jordan
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 4:47 PM
To: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] [cti-stix] Spec Version
 
All,
 
For STIX 2.1 the TC decided to add a "spec_version" property to all objects (a property that will record the version of STIX to which the object conforms). I wonder if this property would be best renamed to "stix_version" instead of "spec_version".  I feel like "stix_version" might make it more clear what we are referring to, especially for non-native english speakers.
 
In STIX 2.0 we had "spec_version" on the Bundle, however, that has been removed from the Bundle in STIX 2.1.
 
I originally brought this up on slack, but wanted to make sure the broader TC could voice their opinion, especially those that do not natively speak english.
 
Bret