|
I concur
Bret
Sent from my Commodore 64
I also back this decision. I am more worried about the consequences of missing something and doing it wrong, than about ramifications of not including it.
-
Jason Keirstead
STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
www.ibm.com/security |
www.securityintelligence.com
Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown
<graycol.gif>Mark Davidson ---03/29/2016 08:16:51 AM---I’d like to second this so that we can have a clear CTI TC-wide view of opinions on this matter. I c
From: Mark Davidson <mdavidson@soltra.com>
To: "Foley, Alexander - GIS" <alexander.foley@bankofamerica.com>, "Wunder, John A." <jwunder@mitre.org>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org"
<cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 03/29/2016 08:16 AM
Subject: Re: [cti] Verisoning Discussion @ CTI Working Discussion
Sent by: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
I’d like to second this so that we can have a clear CTI TC-wide view of opinions on this matter. I care more about making a decision than I do the specific outcome.
Thank you.
-Mark
From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf
of "Foley, Alexander - GIS" <alexander.foley@bankofamerica.com>
Date: Monday, March 28, 2016 at 5:56 PM
To: "Wunder, John A." <jwunder@mitre.org>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org"
<cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [cti] Verisoning Discussion @ CTI Working Discussion
I motion that we do not consider including versioning as part of STIX 2.0, and instead wait for 2.1+ to implement it.
I’m not trying to say that we shouldn’t prepare for it, I just don’t believe we’re going to solve this issue in the next three months given the many other issues we need to figure out.
Thanks,
Alex Foley
From: cti@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Wunder, John A.
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 1:58 PM
To: cti@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [cti] Verisoning Discussion @ CTI Working Discussion
It seems like another important topic is is versioning MVP
(should we include it in STIX 2.0, or wait until 2.1+)?
I know that the working group leaders believe that it is, but it seems like we should talk through that as a group before digging into these deeper topics just in case the community as a whole feels differently.
From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Marlon Taylor <Marlon.Taylor@hq.dhs.gov>
Date: Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:38 AM
To: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [cti] Verisoning Discussion @ CTI Working Discussion
Hi All,
During the CTI call tomorrow we will discuss versioning, more specifically implicit vs explicit relationships. During this discussion it will be beneficial to identify:
· What’s the difference?
o With Implicit Relationships - as a version is updated, the relationships of the former as passed along to the latter.
o With Explicit Relationships - as a version is updated, it is new with no prior relationships.
· Is there any use-case/rationale for either?
o Arguably one can state they both can result in a version update where the relationships of the former exist in the latter.
· Should they be mutually exclusive?
Please join the call tomorrow to learn about and contribute to this topic.
Feel free to use this thread as a notebook for your views/questions/ideas for tomorrow’s discussion.
Marlon Taylor
Technology Services Section (TSS)
National Cybersecurity & Communications Integration Center (NCCIC)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at
http://www.bankofamerica.com/emaildisclaimer. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message.
|
