Re: [cti] Documents

[Trey Darley <trey@soltra.com>]

On 07.03.2016 19:30:29, Barnum, Sean D. wrote:
> That is what we discussed at the F2F when we introduced the idea of
> CTI Common.
> 
> We specifically discussed whether it made sense to create it as a
> separate work product immediately or to simply evolve it for now as
> part of the STIX and CybOX work and then break it out as an official
> work product once STIX 2.0 and CybOX 3.0 looked stable. I believe
> there was unanimous agreement to do the latter.
> 

Gosh, no, CTI Common should definitely remain a separate work product!
It codifies some of the more controversial^Wcomplex decisions of the
TC in a single work product. Suppose 18 months from now we realize
that we totally screwed something up, say timestamps or versioning.
I'd far rather have CybOX 3.x and STIX 2.x *reference* the CTI Common
versioning spec 1.x than risk the possibility of the versioning spec
diverge across the sister standards.

-- 
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 more complicated than you think." --RFC 1925

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature