RE: Report object consensus

["Masuoka, Ryusuke" <masuoka.ryusuke@jp.fujitsu.com>]

Hi, John,

 

I have a few questions as to internationalization.

 

Q1. Is the data encoded in UTF-8 or some other encoding

  so that it can include Japanese and other languages?

 

Q2. Doesn’t the title and descriptions include its language code (such as jp, en, fr, ...)?

  (It is, I believe, a good practice even if it is obvious. Automatic translation

  system can use such information.)

 

Q3. If I were to provide translations to the title, descriptions, and

  other human readable fields using relationships, how can I refer

  to them?

 

Q4. Is it possible to have, for example, titles in multiple languages

  from the start? (Ex. An Japanese entity creates a CTI piece

  with Japanese/English titles from the beginning.)

 

Regards,

 

Ryu

 

From: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Wunder, John A.
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 4:36 AM
To: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [cti-stix] Report object consensus

 

All,

 

Based on the e-mail discussion last week, it seemed like consensus was to have a list of references to content within the report object rather than to use relationships. Given that, we updated the content in the pre-draft specification, which you can find here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U48DOJzh2qELOEhhVWz_G6hL0Bazx1Y52wpOeR8jaVk/edit#heading=h.tmlyjpfh5924

 

We do still have a couple open questions:

1. Is it better to have one list of references (as we have in the text above), or multiple lists as we do in package? In other words, do we have one field called report_contains_ref and it has references to indicators, relationships, threat actors, etc. or do we have a field for indicator_refs, another for relationship_refs, another for threat_actor_refs, etc. We’ll also need to decide on the exact field names to use in either scenario.
2. Is there a need for a confidence field on report? It wasn’t there in 1.2, so this would be an addition, but at least Sean has noted that it would be useful.
3. Should title be required?
4. In STIX 1.2, there was a report intents field as a controlled vocabulary. Do we need this field, and if so, what should the list of values be? You can see this text now in the playground doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wiG6RoNEFaE2lrblfgjpu3RTAJZOK2q0b5OxXCaCV14/edit#heading=h.8rupwbdhhtsj

Thoughts?

 

FWIW, my answers are:

1. Single field
2. I can’t think of a reason to include it, but I’m not really opposed. If we do include it we just need to clearly and carefully specify what the confidence field is describing confidence for: that the collection of things are related in some way, that the collection of things belong to that title, etc.
3. Yes.
4. Probably useful, and we need to think about what type of values we want to put in there. The current list of values is a mess.

John