cti-stix message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] Location, latitude/longitude, and precision
- From: "Jason Keirstead" <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
- To: "Wunder, John A." <jwunder@mitre.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 15:12:55 -0300
I have to disagree RE "implementation
complexity".
Either way it is a couple of dozen bytes
of JSON.
If anything, "rolling our own"
is dramatically increasing our complexity because it means now I can no
longer use a prepared library or feed it into any third party product (ref:
http://wiki.geojson.org/Users)
-
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:
"Wunder, John
A." <jwunder@mitre.org>
To:
"Struse, Richard
J." <rjs@mitre.org>, Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
Cc:
Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>,
"cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>,
Mark Davidson <Mark.Davidson@nc4.com>, "Trey Darley" <trey@newcontext.com>
Date:
07/19/2017 11:43 AM
Subject:
Re: [cti-stix]
Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] Location, latitude/longitude, and precision
Yeah I agree with Rich here, GeoJSON is
far beyond a lat/lng with precision. In fact, looking through the GeoJSON
specification, they don’t even include anything to indicate precision
or uncertainty.
From: "Struse, Richard J."
<rjs@mitre.org>
Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 10:36 AM
To: Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: "Bret Jordan (CS)" <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>,
"cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>,
John Wunder <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
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
- References:
- Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] Location, latitude/longitude, and precision
- From: Mark Davidson <Mark.Davidson@nc4.com>
- Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] Location, latitude/longitude, and precision
- From: "Wunder, John A." <jwunder@mitre.org>
- Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] Location, latitude/longitude, and precision
- From: "Struse, Richard J." <rjs@mitre.org>
- Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] Location, latitude/longitude, and precision
- From: Trey Darley <trey@newcontext.com>
- Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] Location, latitude/longitude, and precision
- From: Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
- Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] Location, latitude/longitude, and precision
- From: "Struse, Richard J." <rjs@mitre.org>
- Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] Location, latitude/longitude, and precision
- From: "Jason Keirstead" <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
- Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] Location, latitude/longitude, and precision
- From: "Struse, Richard J." <rjs@mitre.org>
- Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] Location, latitude/longitude, and precision
- From: "Wunder, John A." <jwunder@mitre.org>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]