OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cti-stix message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Single Binding


I agree with Bret: one binding to rule them all, one binding to…bind…them.

I also agree that the single binding should be JSON. I think people will have huge problems implementing a binary protocol across a variety of languages and platforms. We would have to consider language/library support, compatibility between different libraries, and all the other challenges of a binary protocol.

If at some point volume surpasses what we can do in JSON that would be a good time to counter my first statement and add a binary protocol *for only those use cases* and continue to use JSON for other use cases. In other words, we might add another binding but each use case would only have a single supported binding.

John

From: <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of "Jordan, Bret"
Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:36 AM
To: Terry MacDonald
Cc: Eric Burger, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org"
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Single Binding

I am not against a binary version.  I do have concerns about ease of use with binary.  I also have concerns with good solid support for handhelds. 

But that discussion aside, I think we both agree on "not XML" and "only one way to do it".

Bret 

Sent from my Commodore 64

On Jul 29, 2015, at 11:03 PM, Terry MacDonald <terry.macdonald@threatloop.com> wrote:

I disagree with Brett's statement that the only binding should be JSON. I believe that the only binding should be a binary protocol of some sort. We differ in our beliefs there, but we do both believe there should only be a single binding. One way to do it.

The protocol discussion and testing stages should be very interesting when we go through the various options as a community.

Cheers
Terry MacDonald

> On 30 Jul 2015 1:38 pm, "Eric Burger" <Eric.Burger@georgetown.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Fine with me. Anyone else?
>>
>> The counter argument might be “Why bother with UML?” I would offer it is because UML and OWL will let us see the actual relationships. What may be cool is to compile them into JSON bindings. That’s a <hint> research project.
>>
>> > On Jul 24, 2015, at 3:00 PM, Jordan, Bret <bret.jordan@BLUECOAT.COM> wrote:
>> >
>> > On the community call there was a statement made that STIX will continue down the old path of UML and then OWL with bindings for XML and others.  There needs to be a single binding, and it should be JSON.  The only reason I wanted UML was to break our dependency on XML-isims to make it easier to do JSON.
>> >
>> > Bret
>> >
>> > Sent from my Commodore 64
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>> > generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>> > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>> >
>>



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]