|
Those are good questions. The specification will not mandate, or I hope will not mandate, the use of IEP, but is the interop SC going to mandate it in their profiles?
Bret
Sent from my iPhone
As long as we aren’t mandating all consumers (and producers, though I’m more worried about consumers) to implement IEP, I’m fine with this. I’m also fine with using interoperability to promote the use of IEP, and (hopefully) letting market
forces make IEP used universally.
Meant to say: “…that we are NOT requiring IEP nor…”
Since we began this work there has been a clear recognition that TLP, while useful, isn’t sufficient to represent the sorts of policy expressions that are required to truly enable CTI sharing ecosystems. The FIRST community is exactly the
sort of hands-on community best suited to develop such policy frameworks and it doesn’t seem like there are any competing policy frameworks under consideration. Given that, and the fact that we are requiring IEP nor are we “tying” STIX to IEP (or vice-versa),
it seems worthwhile to do the work necessary to figure out how to best support those communities that wish to use IEP.
Is there anyone actively opposed to the TC figuring out how we might support IEP?
On the IEP front, we need to make sure the TC wants to do it before we figure out how we should do it. I would love to see some discussion over email first, before we tackle it on a working call that only has a
subset of the membership. In other words, a working call is not a good place to decide "if" we should do something. It is a great place to figure out "how" we should do it, once the TC has sufficiently debated and decided to do it.
Bret
All,
We have three topics for the working call this week:
1.
Continue work on DNS Request/Response
2.
Continue work on Location, in particular discuss ISO 3166
3.
Discuss inclusion of IEP (how we should do it)
John
|