Re: JSON or what???

[Jerome Athias <athiasjerome@gmail.com>]

Hi list,

While I think that refactoring (especially for the Relationships) could have a significant impact depending of the MTI, I would suggest that we don't postpone decisions regarding the MTI.

I would suggest that, in case of emergency, we take immediate actions.

In this case, can we schedule a (first) vote regarding MTI?

This I think would help to orient, and maybe decide what and how we will refactor or simplify some elements for effective actions.

On Thursday, 19 November 2015, Trey Darley <trey@soltra.com> wrote:

On 18.11.2015 14:50:30, Paul Patrick wrote:
>
>    By any chance are they any samples that show a comparison between
>    a STIX example in the XML format and the proposed JSON format?
>    What would be great would be if someone would take a handful of
>    the idioms for STIX and show the equivalent in JSON.
>

Hi, Paul -

Fwiw, there seems to be clear consensus amongst the co-chairs on JSON
as the MTI representation. For several months now, pretty much all the
STIX 2.0 / CybOX 3.0 refactoring proposals have been expressed in
JSON, not XML.

Obviously the final decision is not up to the co-chairs. The OASIS CTI
has the ultimate say through the formal voting process. But from where
I sit, having followed the JSON vs XML discussion for several years,
the burden of proof (so to speak) has clearly shifted.

We've debated this to death. Sean and Terry have both done yeoman's
work in identifying a critical hitlist for refactoring. Let's focus
our discussion on the Relationship and Sightings topics, achieve
consensus there, move on to work through the rest of the critical
hitlist, and finally circle back to the MTI discussion, if necessary.

--
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
--
"Any sufficiently complex input format is indistinguishable from
bytecode." -- Bratus, Patterson, & Shubina