RE: [cti-stix] Timestamps - Proposal

[Terry MacDonald <terry@soltra.com>]

I'm sure millisecond will be good enough for now. 

We will never be able to cover every governments exact specific requirements, so I don't think we should start. I'm sure that the EU, China, Japan, Australia and NZ all have their own requirements in this space, and all we can expect to do is cover the main 80%. We get into trouble trying to shoehorn the last 20% in.

Cheers

Terry MacDonald
Senior STIX Subject Matter Expert
SOLTRA | An FS-ISAC and DTCC Company
+61 (407) 203 206 | terry@soltra.com 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Tony Rutkowski
Sent: Wednesday, 2 December 2015 8:07 AM
To: Jordan, Bret <bret.jordan@bluecoat.com>; Patrick Maroney <Pmaroney@Specere.org>
Cc: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Timestamps - Proposal

SEC Rule 613 requires millisecond or better timestamps for its event observables. See https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/rule613-info.htm

A precision is trivial.  Getting the uncertainty value underpinning the data element is more difficult.
In a NFV world, sub millisecond uncertainties are essential.
-t

On 2015-12-01 03:07 PM, Jordan, Bret wrote:
> 10Gig/40Gig/100Gig networks will have support for nano second, but 
> there did not seem to be any solid use-cases for mili second 
> precision.  If I am wrong, PLEASE speak up.
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
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