Re: [cti] Documents

["Barnum, Sean D." <sbarnum@mitre.org>]

I think that makes sense.




On 3/8/16, 4:37 AM, "Trey Darley" <trey@soltra.com> wrote:

>On 07.03.2016 19:19:22, Mark Davidson wrote:
>> Sean, you said:
>> 
>> > CTI Common 1.0 is an initial version of a standard
>> 
>> Sorry if I missed it, but when did we all decide that we were adding
>> this work product? I don’t recall discussion or vote around this,
>> but then again I may have missed it.
>> 
>
>While there appears to be universal consensus (!) on the prudence of a
>CTI Common standard for constructs that are common across both STIX
>and CybOX (ie, timestamps, versioning, etc), as Mark rightly points
>out we haven't formally established CTI Common as an official CTI TC
>work product.
>
>At the January F2F in Tampa I floated the notion of establishing a CTI
>Common SC but this got promptly shot down due to concerns about the
>proliferation of committees. I am not now advocating creating a new
>SC; to maul Eliot, "This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang
>but in committee." But we need to do *something* to formalize CTI
>Common as a CTI TC work product, jointly overseen by the STIX and
>CybOX SCs.
>
>I *think* this calls for a TC-wide vote. Thoughts?
>
>-- 
>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
>--
>"In protocol design, perfection has been reached not when there is
>nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
>--RFC 1925