[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti] OASIS CTI-wide resolution on the MTI serialization
I second it. Thanks for putting this together, Trey! > On Nov 20, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Trey Darley <trey@soltra.com> wrote: > > Hi, everybody - > > I'm sure you are well aware of the seemingly endless MTI serialization > MTI debate (aka, JSON versus XML). Historically, standardization > efforts following the "rough consensus and running code" model have > been successful. Standardization efforts following the "endless > academic debate within committee" model have not fared so well. Rough > consensus and running code have gotten us to where we're at today and > it is that same model which will ultimately win the day. > > There is a vocal minority within the CTI community who present a > chicken and egg scenario where we have to fix the model in stone > before we can decide on the MTI serialization yet no tangible progress > can be made on the model without a serialization in which technical > people can express their ideas in running code. It is time to cut that > Gordian Knot. As one of the co-chairs succintly put it yesterday, "One > fact, if we do not gain adoption greater than 18-20% of the market in > the next year or so, this standard will fade away in to obscurity, > regardless of how neat and perfect the model is. The model is > important, but not the most important. Adoption is the most important > criteria." > > The TAXII SC has made phenomenal progress towards defining TAXII 2.0 > and may in fact have draft work product by the end of this year. The > CybOX SC, while not quite as far along as the TAXII folks, is moving > rapidly towards a CybOX 3.0 draft spec. What do these SCs have in > common? They're not merely debating use cases in theoretical terms, > but simultaneously working through the actual issues on a technical > level using JSON notation. > > Accordingly, the co-chairs are moving to close this debate so that we > can concentrate our efforts on addressing critical issues within the > STIX/CybOX models themselves. > > This is in no way to discount the need to translate the refactoring > efforts into UML models for the final OASIS draft specifications. UML > modelling is putting the icing on the cake. Now is the time to > actually *bake* the cake. > > Likewise, the co-chairs recognize that there will be communities of > interest requiring alternative serialization formats (XML, protobufs, > JSON-LD, OWL, etc). The OASIS TC has a role to play in helping to > standardize these alternative representations to ensure > interoperabilitity. However, that work effort lies in the future. > First we must complete the task at hand. > > > Supporters of the resolution: > * Aharon Chernin (Soltra) > * Alexander Foley (Bank of America) > * Bernd Grobauer (Siemens) > * Bret Jordon (Blue Coat) > * David Eilken (Soltra) > * Ivan Kirillov (MITRE) > * Jason Keirstead (IBM) > * Joep Gommers (EclecticIQ) > * John Anderson (Soltra) > * John Wunder (MITRE) > * Jon Baker (MITRE) > * Jonathan Bush (Soltra) > * Mark Davidson (MITRE) > * Richard Struse (DHS) > * Sergey Polzunov (EclecticIQ) > * Trey Darley (Soltra) > > And with that, I present to you the formal resolution text as agreed > upon by the co-chairs and hereby motion to put the proposal to a > formal TC-wide vote. Can I get a second to the motion? > > <snip> > Resolved: > ========= > The CTI community will embrace a JSON/JSON Schema-based MTI > representation for the TAXII 2.0, STIX 2.0, and CybOX 3.0 refactoring > efforts. > > Elaboration: > ============ > By adopting an MTI representation, we are explicitly requiring any > vendor or software product claiming CTI-compatibility to minimally > support the JSON serialization. Vendors are free to define and support > additional serializations (XML, protobufs, etc.) to address their > specific use cases, but if they do not support the MTI serialization, > their products are not CTI-interoperable and they cannot claim to > support the CTI standards. > > The committee chairs recognize the need for additional optional > serialization formats, either now or in the future. The committee > chairs are prepared to support standardizing alternative serialization > formats for interoperability purposes in collaboration with the > interested parties but until the TC has approved the STIX 2.0, TAXII > 3.0 and CybOX 3.0 specifications we as a community do not have the > bandwidth to support this effort. > > Regardless of what alternative serialization formats may be defined > and standardized in the future, the JSON MTI will remain the "must be > this tall to ride" in terms of CTI standards compliance. > </snip> > > -- > 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 > -- > "It is easier to move a problem around (for example, by moving the > problem to a different part of the overall network architecture) than > it is to solve it." --RFC 1925
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]