Re: [cti-stix] Typo in range of integers

["Back, Greg" <gback@mitre.org>]

I agree it has the potential to be confusing. I was just trying to recall the explanation for why it was the way it was before we went and changed anything :-)

Greg

On 2017-06-08, 6:09 PM, "John-Mark Gurney" <jmg@newcontext.com> wrote:

    Back, Greg wrote this message on Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 03:28 +0000:
    > Was it because JSON don’t have a separate integer type, so those are the max/min integers that can be represented precisely in IEEE 754?
    
    This is likely that case, but it's confusing to talk about a 64-bit
    value, but then define the range of a 64-bit value as a 54-bit value.
    If this is the case, we should change the wording, as it stands, the
    wording is very confusing.  Better to say that all integers must be
    represented as a signed 54-bit value.  And then add text about why,
    and that a 64-bit value for intermediate is fine, but that still means
    you need to add range checking before/after..
    
    > From: <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of John-Mark Gurney <jmg@newcontext.com>
    > Date: Monday, June 5, 2017 at 7:38 PM
    > To: Ivan Kirillov <ikirillov@mitre.org>, "Jordan, Bret" <bret.jordan@bluecoat.com>, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>, Sarah Kelley <sarah.kelley@cisecurity.org>
    > Subject: [cti-stix] Typo in range of integers
    > 
    > In Part 1 of STIX, Section 2.6, there is the text:
    > Unless otherwise specified, all integers MUST be capable of being represented as a signed 64-bit value ([-(2**53)+1, (2**53)-1]).
    > 
    > It looks like 53 was used instead of 63.  Or was this changed for some reason?  A signed 64-bit has a larger range that specified here.
    
    -- 
    John-Mark