Re: [cti-users] Towards a better understanding of JSON-LD (Was: MTI Binding)

[Trey Darley <trey@soltra.com>]

On 09.10.2015 19:55:47, Jason Keirstead wrote:
> 
> This is going to be an issue no matter what format is decided upon,
> unless we abandon the effort and keep the existing XML format as-is
> - because of CybOX.
> 
> Decisions around the format of STIX 2.0 don't automatically
> propagate to the CybOX level - those decisions would have to be made
> in the CybOX TC. And since CybOX has many more consumers than simply
> STIX, it could (and probably will) become an even more difficult
> task to change formats. Therefore I think it has to be assumed that
> no matter what format STIX 2.0 ends up in, that format needs to
> assume it will have embedded XML
> 

Fwiw, Ivan and I have been operating under the assumption that CybOX
3.0 will use the same MTI representation as STIX. Yes, there are other
consumers of CybOX, but our main priority is supporting the needs of
the OASIS CTI community.

-- 
Cheers,
Trey
--
Trey Darley
Senior Security Engineer
4DAA 0A88 34BC 27C9 FD2B  A97E D3C6 5C74 0FB7 E430
Soltra | An FS-ISAC & DTCC Company
www.soltra.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature