Re: [cti-stix] Object ID format

[Patrick Maroney <Pmaroney@Specere.org>]

 [+1] with Paul Patrick's comment:

"+1 with Sean’s comment that we should strongly resist tying this to TAXII. A number of communities of trust that I work with have adopted STIX but not TAXII at this point, so while I’m very bullish on TAXII we still need to be able to leverage STIX with other exchange approaches."

With the re-assertion that it is mandatory that we retain the core CTI tenet in the current specification that STIX and TAXII can exist and function independently. There's a broad CTI user community where STIX packages are created in, and inter-exchanged  between, Air Gapped stakeholders.  Some of these systems-environments will never have externally connectivity.  90% of the 1,000s of STIX packages we've consumed, produced since ~2013 , have been solely through direct exchange of STIX package files.  Most are over a network, but an there is important requirement with a key stakeholder who only supports exchange of STIX Files on Physical media via FedEx.

Is there anyone who doesn't agree with this assertion?  If so we need to open a dialog.

Patrick Maroney
President
Integrated Networking Technologies, Inc.
Desk: (856)983-0001
Cell: (609)841-5104
Email: pmaroney@specere.org

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:47 AM -0800, "Paul Patrick" <ppatrick@isightpartners.com> wrote:

+1 with Sean’s comment that we should strongly resist tying this to TAXII.   A number of communities of trust that I work with have adopted STIX but not TAXII at this point, so while I’m very bullish on TAXII we still need to be able to leverage STIX with other exchange approaches.

Paul Patrick

iSIGHT Partners