Re: [cti] Re: [EXT] [cti] Embedded Relationships

[Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>]

Jerome,

Yes, as you remember we had a long debate about these back when TAXII first started. My personal preference was and remains ZeroMQ.  But that is just me.  

The primary reason we as a TC decided against using these was two fold:

1) Vendors that either do this today or produce/consume the content that we need today, all use RESTful HTTP designs. Doing something different here would slow adoption.

2) We did not want to prevent TAXII adoption in the Enterprise due to firewall rules that might need to be added for messaging protocol XYZ.

I am sure this debate will come up again once we start work on 2.1 and finish TAXII channels.  The way I see it, there are two real options for channels:

a) reopen debate on message protocols 

b) define something like HTTP long-polling (this is where the TC had landed on it the past.)

Bret

---

From: Jerome Athias <jerome.athias@protonmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 7, 2017 12:18 AM
To: Mark Davidson
Cc: Jason Keirstead; Reller, Nathan S.; Terry MacDonald; Allan Thomson; Bret Jordan; Struse, Richard; John-Mark Gurney; cti@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [cti] Re: [EXT] [cti] Embedded Relationships

 

<snip>

ZeroMQ, AMQP, et al are clearly better architectural fits for messaging. However, ZeroMQ is not a standard, it’s a library; AMQP has a de-facto meaning of “pre-1.0 AMQP”, which in my experience is predominantly RabbitMQ.

JA> Just adding a reference to a (OASIS) Standard (received 2016 Open Standards Cup) for the record

http://mqtt.org/