Re: [cti] Agenda for August 9 Working Call

[+1] On Relationship Description for the reasons Rich Piazza mentioned. [+1] on dropping Name.

[+1] On providing "Version Comment" - it is very useful to humans to understand the basis for a revision. For example a legitimate asset may have been fully compromised at some point and then mitigated. A fairly substantive amount of narrative can describe the activities around this series of events.

Patrick Maroney
President
Integrated Networking Technologies, Inc.
Desk: (856)983-0001
Cell: (609)841-5104
Email: pmaroney@specere.org

_____________________________
From: Piazza, Rich <rpiazza@mitre.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 11:26 AM
Subject: RE: [cti] Agenda for August 9 Working Call
To: Jordan, Bret <bret.jordan@bluecoat.com>, Wunder, John A. <jwunder@mitre.org>
Cc: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>

One reason to have “description” is for named relationships that aren’t defined in the spec. The “verb” might not fully describe the reason for the relationship.

From: cti@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org]On Behalf Of Jordan, Bret
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 10:45 AM
To: Wunder, John A. <jwunder@mitre.org>
Cc: cti@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [cti] Agenda for August 9 Working Call

3. Maybe we need a new field on Relationship to capture this Verb... If we do this, then Name and Description probably can be dropped as they will not be needed. The only reason description is there, I believe, is because historically we added description to anything that had a name.

cti message