Re: [cti] Formal motion regarding selection of default or MTI serialization bindings for CTI TC work products

[Terry MacDonald <terry.macdonald@threatloop.com>]

Completely agree.

Cheers
Terry MacDonald

On 7/10/2015 8:10 pm, "Eric Burger" <Eric.Burger@georgetown.edu> wrote:

If we promise not to vote for an MTI at this time, then that is a good enough ‘vote’.

BTW, I will eventually insist we have an MTI, whatever it will be. Otherwise, all we are doing is a branding effort for vendors to call their proprietary implementations “standard and not interoperable."

On Oct 6, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Bush, Jonathan <jbush@DTCC.COM> wrote:

I agree with this 110%… but do we really need to make a motion to not do something?  I would hate to waste time on a voting process for that sort of thing.

 

From: cti@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Barnum, Sean D.
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 2:56 PM
To: cti@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [cti] Formal motion regarding selection of default or MTI serialization bindings for CTI TC work products

 

 

I would like to formally make a motion that we make no decisions on default or MTI serialization bindings for CTI TC work products until we have consensus on requirements and evaluation criteria, identification and understanding of potential options and understanding of how each option does or does not meet the consensus requirements and evaluation criteria.

 

 

Sean Barnum

OASIS CTI TC / STIX SC Co-chair

DTCC DISCLAIMER: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately and delete the email and any attachments from your system. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses.  The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.