[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fwd: STIX timestamps and ISO 8601:2000
Back to the future ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jerome Athias <athiasjerome@gmail.com> Date: 2014-02-10 10:10 GMT+03:00 Subject: Re: STIX Content Revision and Revocation To: "Wunder, John A." <jwunder@mitre.org> Cc : Terry MacDonald <terry.macdonald@gmail.com>, Patrick Maroney <Pmaroney@specere.org>, "Grobauer, Bernd" <Bernd.Grobauer@siemens.com>, "Taylor, Marlon" <Marlon.Taylor@hq.dhs.gov>, DisplayName <patrick.maroney@mac.com>, "Barnum, Sean D." <sbarnum@mitre.org>, Kyle Maxwell <krmaxwell@gmail.com>, Dave Dittrich <dittrich@u.washington.edu>, stix-discussion-list Structured Threat Information Expression/ST <stix-discussion-list@lists.mitre.org> I would see xs:datetime as "an implementation of strings formatted according to a subset of ISO 8601:2000, documented in RFC 3339." http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#isoformats http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3339 so no "differences" 2014-02-10 Wunder, John A. <jwunder@mitre.org>: > Hey guys, > > > > I have a quick question about RFC3339 vs. XML Schema's dateTime. I looked > into them briefly and as far as I can tell they are very similar...some small > differences in what each allows (capital T to denote time vs. either capital > or lowercase, things like that). Are there important differences that make > RFC3339 better than xs:dateTime that I'm missing? The nice thing about > xs:dateTime is that, as long as STIX is in XML it natively validates, vs. > RFC3339 which we would have to validate (and wouldn't work as well in > programmatic bindings). > > > > Note: I'm basing this off of this mailing list post regarding Atom, so it's > very possible I just don't understand the differences: > http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13103.html. > > > > Thanks, > > John > > > > From: Terry MacDonald [mailto:terry.macdonald@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 8:20 PM > To: Patrick Maroney > Cc: Grobauer, Bernd; Taylor, Marlon; DisplayName; Barnum, Sean D.; Wunder, > John A.; Kyle Maxwell; Dave Dittrich; stix-discussion-list Structured Threat > Information Expression/ST > Subject: Re: STIX Content Revision and Revocation > > > > [+1] again on the RFC3339 (In UTC with 6 digits of precision) for me too > please. > > > > Cheers > > > > Terry MacDonald > > > Terry MacDonald > > > > On 10 February 2014 14:02, Patrick Maroney <Pmaroney@specere.org> wrote: > > [+1] For a universal (optional) timestamp attribute( (RFC3339 in UTC with > at last 6 digits of precision for 'time-secfrac'). Understand we will need > to defer on other related attributes (like potential CRUD/change modality) > to give it the attention this needs However, this change would help lay > the foundations for a unified temporal reference (or at least the ability to > assert same ;-). > > > > Patrick Maroney > Executive Director > Defense Security Information Exchange (DSIE) > Office: (856)983-0001 > Cell: (609)841-5104 > pmaroney@specere.org > > ________________________________ > > From: owner-stix-discussion-list@lists.mitre.org > <owner-stix-discussion-list@lists.mitre.org> on behalf of Grobauer, Bernd > <Bernd.Grobauer@siemens.com> > Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 2:48:01 PM > To: Taylor, Marlon; DisplayName; Barnum, Sean D. > > > Cc: Wunder, John A.; Terry MacDonald; Kyle Maxwell; Dave Dittrich; > stix-discussion-list Structured Threat Information Expression/ST > > Subject: RE: STIX Content Revision and Revocation > > > > Hi, > > > > I pretty much agree with Marlon's answers to the open questions put by Sean. > Looking at > > draft 2 of version 1.1 of Stix, I would like to add my vote to Marlon's > answer to question > > 10 "Should an additional @timestamp attribute be added to each contstruct.". > Marlon > > prefers the attribute, and so do I: timestamp information is such essential > information, > > that it should be on top-level right next to the identifier rather than > somewhere below > > in the (optional!!) "Information_Source/Time/Produced_Time" element. > > > > Also: I think on must be able to add timestamp information to really every > object > > that has an identifier: I am not sure that every object I want to timestamp > has the 'Information_Source'-substructure: > > making '@timestamp' an attribute next to any place where an '@id' attribute > occurs makes sure > > that any object can be timestamped. > > > > So, in short: although this comes rather late in the timeline of STIX 1.1: I > really think > > that draft 2 should be changed with regards to the location of where the > timestamp information > > is kept: make '@timestamp' a sibling of '@id', '@id_ref' and > '@timestamp_ref' rather > > than keeping the timestamp in "Information_Source/Time/Produced_Time". > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Bernd > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]