|
So, we didn’t make quite as much progress last week as we were hoping but we did reach official consensus on several issues and did have a lot of great conversation that needed to occur.
Quick snapshot of status is as follows:
-
Issues with full “Consensus Achieved” asserted. These issues have been updated in the tracker to assert their consensus status, marked with a “Consensus Achieved” label and had a consensus status banner added to their relevant proposal wiki pages.
- Object ID format and requirement (STIX #301, 221)
- Remove abstract base types for “top-level” objects (STIX #311, 386) (F2F consensus)
- Remove Short_Description (STIX #194) (F2F consensus)
- Controlled Vocabularies (STIX #141)
- Simplify structure for Controlled Vocabularies (F2F consensus)
- Data Markings (STIX #8, 231, 379, 378, 185)
- Discrete Timestamp format (STIX #294)
-
Issues with Consensus Achieved asserted at the concept level but still need official agreement on normative text. Rich Piazza is working on adding draft normative text for community review.
- Refactor report object (STIX #385) (F2F consensus) Draft normative text now exists in the
STIX pre-draft spec doc for this issue.
- Flatten all aggregating list layers (STIX #262)
- Flatten all the list types in STIXType STIX #382)
- Refactor TTP (STIX #360) (F2F consensus)
-
Issues that were actively discussed leading to a revised an integrated approach being proposed. Needs further discussion on list (and on the working call this week) to hopefully drive to consensus.
- Separate Source construct (STIX #233, 263)
- Open questions on how to relate it to content
- Which fields belong on Source?
- External_IDs property on all IDable constructs (STIX #358, 187) (F2F consensus)
- Issues that were proposed and discussed to a lesser degree. These issues look like they may be close to consensus but further discussion in required.
- Issues that we did not get a chance to discuss last week
- Develop one or more vocabularies for RelationshipType/Relationship (STIX #4)
New issues on the docket for this week of the plan:
- Sightings (2-ended relationship or 1-ended assertion?)
- Indicator structure/properties
- CybOX
-
- Refactor/Deprecate Base DataTypes (CybOX #416)
- Issues around Object Subclassing (CybOX #411)
- Identify and reach consensus on refactoring for most common objects
Plan for this week:
- Introduce, discuss and decide on proposed normative text for yellow
items above
- Discuss and decide on proposed “sources” refactoring from last week.
- Introduce, discuss and decide on proposed normative text for CybOX items #1 & #2 above
- Publish to the list a plan for refactoring of most common CybOX objects and drive to official consensus on objects we currently have rough consensus on
- Discuss and decide on proposed normative text for Indicator structure/properties
- Introduce, discuss and decide on proposed normative text for base approach for Sightings (2-ended relationship or 1-ended assertion?)
Once again, this is a very aggressive schedule
with significant risk of not making it through everything but we would very much like to strive to make as much progress as possible.
Success will be more likely with active contributions
from all of you. Please speak up and let us know what you think.
BTW, you have likely been seeing questions and contributions on the lists lately from Rich Piazza at MITRE. Beyond his thoughts on the list he has also been helping to pull together some of the proposed normative text on some of these issues. Going forward
he will also be contributing some of his cycles to help manage our tranche plan in order to free more of my cycles to work on normative text and to think about and discuss issues. I just wanted to publicly thank Rich for stepping up and contributing in this
manner.
Sean Barnum
STIX SC Co-chair
|