Re: [cti] CTI TC Adoption and Interoperability SCs

[Eric Burger <Eric.Burger@georgetown.edu>]

Agreed. So everyone has it handy, visit http://stixproject.github.io/documentation/profiles/

I was thinking of profiles as a protocol construct. What we have today is fine.

On Jul 14, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Barnum, Sean D. <sbarnum@mitre.org> wrote:

Hi Eric,

Just to clarify something mentioned below. "Since we do not have profiles (yet), one would be hard pressed to say one does “profile processing.”"

We do currently have profiles and we do currently have “profile processing”. Many community members (including sharing communities that are CTI community members) are currently leveraging profiles. They specify them, share them and design their processes around them.

There is a difference between:

• having the capability to specify, understand and leverage a profile 

and 

• having a catalog/registry of officially blessed profiles and shared tooling implementations to process them

The second is a great goal but is not required for using profiles.

Does that make sense?

sean

[snip]

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature