| This is why I can see them as work products of a single document / single version. This way products can easily state which versions they support.
Can you imaging the versioning issues on products of which version of CTI Common, CybOX, and STIX you support? Lets make things easier for the primary use cases. And if other communities want to use part of our work, great. They can just reference the parts they need.
Thanks,
Bret Bret Jordan CISSPDirector of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTO Blue Coat Systems PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050 "Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg."
There seems to be two issues – having 3 different specs with the same version number (i.e., up all versions to 3.0) , or having one big spec…. It’s hard to disagree with the former, but I tend to think Sean has a point about the latter… I agree. In reality there are lots of interdependencies and they almost always version in sync anyway, so we might as well formalize that. It also simplifies how we talk about things…how many times have you said “well that’s not really STIX, it’s CybOX, so XYZ rather than ABC”? This way we get rid of that issue. I do agree with Paul’s (separate) concerns about references in, but I think by following what Allan and Bret mentioned we can avoid that and ensure that people only deal with what they have to. One symptom of the split that I really don’t like is that certain TLOs will have a CTI Common spec version (relationship), others have a STIX one (Indicator), and others have a CybOX one (Observation). That seems very confusing to me…one version to rule them all! Having a single version of the content is preferred from my perspective. You can still have normative text that describes each module separately. But having ONE version to track for the related content is preferred.
Right now, we have three documents for STIX & CybOX, aka CTI. We have: I would like to challenge this design. It seems like we are opening ourselves to document versioning and compliance / interoperability nightmares. 1) Does it really make sense, other than for historical reasons, to keep these documents separate? 2) If they were merged, then could not things like MAEC and other standards (that are NOT part of OASIS) just reference the sections that were of interest to them? Bret Jordan CISSP Director of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTO PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050 "Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg."
|