Re: [cti] Text around bundle

The warning sign is the discussion of wanting to put language in the spec about the semantics of Bundle. It is odd to weird to say the semantics aren’t. If people have “gotten it wrong” in the past, that means people read in semantics even if we say there are no semantics. That says our experience is there will be interoperability problems if we do go this route.

On Nov 16, 2016, at 3:56 AM, Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
Yes, indeed, the only reason this object exists really is so that we can describe the top level object wrapper we need to make a valid JSON file that contains the STIX.

--
Sent from my mobile device, please excuse any typos.
Trey Darley --- Re: [cti] Text around bundle ---

From: "Trey Darley" <trey@kingfisherops.com>
To: "Eric Burger" <Eric.Burger@georgetown.edu>
Cc: cti@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Wed, Nov 16, 2016 4:51 AM
Subject: Re: [cti] Text around bundle
On 15.11.2016 19:39:47, Eric Burger wrote:
> Why isn’t TAXII the way to send a bunch of unrelated STIX things in
> a single TAXII message?
> 

Hey, Eric -

Because there is a sizable constituency that will not use TAXII as a
transport mechanism for STIX. Think IC. Think sneaker-net and
cross-domain guards.

-- 
Cheers,
Trey
++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++
Kingfisher Operations, sprl
gpg fingerprint: 85F3 5F54 4A2A B4CD 33C4  5B9B B30D DD6E 62C8 6C1D
++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++
--
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice; in
practice there is." --anonymous

cti message