Re: [EXT] Re: [cti-stix] Question on Versioning with 2.1

Then we need to figure out how to add something to TAXII to allow this type of query.

Bret

From: Wunder, John A. <jwunder@mitre.org>
Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 5:52:23 AM
To: Trey Darley; Allan Thomson
Cc: Bret Jordan; cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [EXT] Re: [cti-stix] Question on Versioning with 2.1

I agree with Allan and Trey. As much as I would like STIX to just be a serialization and you can serialize as whatever version, we have object lifecycle stuff in the specification and therefore this is important.

On 4/9/18, 5:14 AM, "Trey Darley" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of trey@newcontext.com> wrote:


    On 06.04.2018 20:37:27, Allan Thomson wrote:
    >
    > So I come to the conclusion for consistency/sync reasons I think it
    > is best to require a change to the modified timestamp even in the
    > case where the only change is 2.0 to 2.1 schema.
    >

    I concur with Allan's assessment.

    --
    Cheers,
    Trey
    ++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++
    Director of Standards Development, New Context
    gpg fingerprint: 3918 9D7E 50F5 088F 823F 018A 831A 270A 6C4F C338
    ++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++
    --
    "There are two types of people: those who fit into my taxonomy and
    those who do not." --anonymous

cti-stix message