Re: [cti-stix] Motion for Ballot on Lengths

I don’t know if the suggestion to add CybOX needs a second, but if so, second.

From: <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Trey Darley <trey@soltra.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 1:50 PM
To: "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@newcontext.com>
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Motion for Ballot on Lengths

I second the motion but would further suggest adding CybOX to the mix.

Cheers,
Trey
++----------------------------------------------------------------------------++
Sent from my CRM-114 Discriminator

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 7:41 PM +0200, "John-Mark Gurney" <jmg@newcontext.com> wrote:

Hello SC,

I motion that we open a ballot to settle the question on if lengths should be added to the standard or not. There has been lots of discussion on this topic, and lots of disagreement, so I feel it's time that we take a vote to move forward.

The question:

Should the STIX specification provide guidance on the lengths supported by free form fields, such as (but not limited to) description, title, and open vocab?

Answers:

No, there should be no lengths limits.

Yes, the spec should specify length limits for free for fields.

Note: If yes, there will be a number of additional questions to follow, but lets resolve first if we even need to ask the remaining questions. One main issue is if the lengths should be mandatory (MUST) or advisory (SHOULD).

My original post on the topic is here: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-stix/201605/msg00174.html

Thanks.

John-Mark

New Context, Inc.

cti-stix message