Re: [cti-stix] Custom properties

[Eric Burger <Eric.Burger@georgetown.edu>]

I would offer repurposing an existing field is beyond wrong. You say precisely why below: if you change the meaning of a property, it is not the same property. That breaks compatibility. Given we have 0% penetration of new, improved, 100% incompatible STIX (XML vs JSON), if anyone is running STIX today, they are not compatible with new STIX. I expect there will be years of old STIX and new STIX running side by side. To say that STIX 3.4 breaks all prior versions because someone wanted to give a new meaning to “vector”, I offer that someone can use “directed” instead.

Given field names are opaque objects to the language, who cares if the property is called “mumble” or, later, “really_mumble”? It is not like we have to put “mumble” back into the pool because we only have 32^26 combinations of property names and as such will run out(!).

> On May 17, 2016, at 5:11 PM, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@newcontext.com> wrote:
> 
> This also means that if a registry is used, that if we want to be forwards
> compatible (2.0 docs work w/o modification on 2.1), that we won't be able
> to repurpose any fields that are registered, which restricts what the TC
> can do in the future...

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail