[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti] CTI TC Adoption and Interoperability SCs
After reading through the various threads/conversations that this question stimulated...it appears that there is general consensus forming around the idea of two additional Sub-Committees: 1) Engagement/Outreach/Adoption, (EOA) and 2) Interoperability/Implementation (II).
Carol had suggested a possible 3rd 'Marketing' Sub-Committee...but that idea did not seem to resonate with this group, so I'd like to suggest that we include that function within an EOA Sub-Committee, working closely with OASIS staff.
We also received some excellent considerations on how the database design considerations should be folded into the overall Sub-Committee structure. Sean's argument for subsuming this topic within the existing Charter Sub-Committee structure appears to have gained acceptance with the provisos that Cory & Eric brought up regarding the need to handle these considerations at a level of abstraction that would facilitate multiple implementations and not lock anyone into a single notion of what might work.
The issue of how the CybOX & STIX Sub-Committees can sort this out should probably be handled by the respective Co-chairs of those Sub-Committees...and managed using the non-Standards track documentation method of OASIS.
There was an initial flurry of posts regarding potential Co-Chairs for the Engagement/Outreach/ Adoption Sub-Committee... but none that I can recall regarding an Interoperability Sub-Committee (although there was for a DB Sub-Committee).
As I recall, some of the candidates for an Engagement/Outreach/ Adoption SC were: Joep Gommers, Patrick MacDonald, Tony Rutkowski, and David Eilken.
Considering this...and previous discussions on a DB Sub-Committee that morphed into an Interoperability/Implementation Sub-Committee... I'd like to ask Jerome Athias and David Eilken if either one, or both, of you would be willing and ready to act as Co-Chairs for a Interoperability/Implementation Sub-Committee... should we decide to form one.
Further, I'd like to inquire of Joep, Tony, and Patrick if you all are still willing and able to serve as Co-Chairs of an Engagement/Outreach /Adoption Sub-Committee?
(Did I leave anyone out?)
Finally, here is a question for Chet and/or Carol.... Would it be unheard-of for a Sub-Committee to have 3 Co-Chairman.... especially one that will be using more of a non-Standards documentation track? I'm thinking here about the size of this CTI-TC, the importance of the topic, and the workload for the proposed individuals.
Jane Ginn, MSIA, MRP
Cyber Threat Intelligence Network, Inc.
Building on Carol’s email from last week (attached), I wanted to restart the discussion relating to a couple of additional subcommittees within the CTI TC. There has been a lot of great discussion around outreach/engagement/adoption and, to a lesser extent, interoperability. I thought it might make sense to take a step back and look at all of these issues so that we might best allocate our scarce resources to the most pressing tasks at hand. In addition, I want to make sure that we take full advantage of the services and resources that the professional staff of OASIS provides – one of the many benefits of having a full-time team in support of our activities.
On the outreach/engagement/adoption front, I believe the principal goal should be the empowerment of all TC members to be effective communicators of the work being done by the CTI TC without necessarily straying over the line into speaking on behalf of the CTI TC as a whole. That can be accomplished in a number of ways including the development of whitepapers, briefing slides, “slick sheets” and other materials that, once approved by the CTI TC can be used by any organization that wants to convey the who, what, when, where and why of STIX/TAXII/CybOX. Another valuable service of such a group would be to identify engagement opportunities such as conferences, other standards activities, workshops, etc. and bring these to the attention of the CTI TC to maximize the likelihood that our message is being conveyed wherever and whenever it is appropriate. Finally, I could imagine that this group might identify real and/or perceived barriers to adoption (both technical and non-technical) and propose specific strategies to the TC to help overcome these barriers. All of these activities would need to be coordinated with Carol and the OASIS marketing team to ensure consistency of message. As Carol mentioned in her email, these activities could be accomplished in either a formal subcommittee of CTI TC members or a group that could include non-CTI TC members.
While adoption is critically important, it is moot unless we have an ecosystem of interoperable solutions. This is a significant undertaking in its own right and should be separate and distinct from any adoption group or subcommittee in my opinion. Carol gave us some great pointers to other TC’s within OASIS and I encourage everyone to peruse those. I think that there is strong consensus in the community that a robust mechanism to determine, report and promote interoperability is urgently needed. As such, an interoperability subcommittee might focus on defining what interoperability means for both data – STIX and CybOX and protocols – TAXII, both at the technical and at the process level. The subcommittee would need to work closely with the STIX, TAXII and CybOX subcommittees to ensure that each of those efforts is delivering specifications that support and advance interoperability. Additional activities that an interoperability subcommittee might take on in support of this include the creation of interoperability testing plans, the creation of test data sets, the use of STIX profiles to aid interoperability, the organizing of interop events and the definition of standardized approaches to documenting interoperability claims. One big question I have is would the interoperability subcommittee actually verify claims of interoperability or would it simply provide the benchmarks that other organizations could employ to conduct such interoperability tests?
This TC has a lot of new members that undoubtedly have experiences both within and outside OASIS that would be valuable to add to the discussion – please pipe up! I’m looking forward to hearing everyone’s thoughts on these important topics.
Richard J. Struse
Chief Advanced Technology Officer
National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) and
Stakeholder Engagement and Cyber Infrastructure Resiliency (SECIR)
Cyber Security & Communications
U.S. Department of Homeland Security