In all fairness, GeoJSON is a big lift in terms of implementation complexity and isn’t really comparable to one additional precision property.
Given that, how would you respond to John’s original question regarding precision?
From: <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 10:32 AM
To: Richard Struse <rjs@mitre.org>
Cc: Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>, "Wunder, John A." <jwunder@mitre.org>, Mark Davidson <Mark.Davidson@nc4.com>, Trey Darley <trey@newcontext.com>
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] Location, latitude/longitude, and precision
As I stated a few days ago - if we are going to start including precision then I would rather we just go back to GeoJSON which is an existing RFC supported out of the box by
many products.
Folks pressed to not use GeoJSON because they would not use all the features, and now we're talking about re-inventing things it already gives us.
-
Jason Keirstead
STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
www.ibm.com/security
Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown
From: "Struse, Richard J." <rjs@mitre.org>
To: Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>, Trey Darley <trey@newcontext.com>
Cc: "Wunder, John A." <jwunder@mitre.org>, Mark Davidson <Mark.Davidson@nc4.com>, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org"
<cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 07/19/2017 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] Location, latitude/longitude, and precision
Sent by: <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Your opinion is noted. What do others on the list think?
On 7/19/17, 9:59 AM, "Bret Jordan" <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com> wrote:
I disagree
Bret
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 19, 2017, at 3:39 PM, Trey Darley <trey@newcontext.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19.07.2017 12:47:55, Struse, Richard J. wrote:
>> I’ve come to believe that precision should be optional. The purist
>> in me wants the text to say that if precision is omitted, the
>> precision of the lat/long is unspecified. But I’m willing to live
>> with text that says if precision is unspecified, it defaults to 10km
>> as John-Mark originally proposed.
>>
>
> Thanks, Rich.
>
> I think this is the correct approach.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Trey
> ++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++
> Director of Standards Development, New Context
> gpg fingerprint: 3918 9D7E 50F5 088F 823F 018A 831A 270A 6C4F C338
> ++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++
> --
> "No matter how hard you try, you can't make a baby in much less than 9
> months. Trying to speed this up *might* make it slower, but it won't
> make it happen any quicker." --RFC 1925