[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti] Normative Statements
If we write for implementers, then everything not testable needs a more widened scope to be testable, otherwise the system itself has a design flaw (end-to-end) which will diminish the value of the whole endeavour. Shouting does not always help, and that is what these RFC artificial injected upper cased words are. If it ain't clear, either describe it in other words or indicate implementation defined behaviour. Another tackle at these format vs. processing domain issues, is to define alternative behaviour expectations side by side - like profiles - in the main spec prose, and then construct projections as more and more strict conformance levels in the matching normative conformance section. Like sample refactored instead of: """Implementations of TAXII servers that offer TLP MUST NOT forward STIX documents marked TLP Red to non-trusted destinations""" Might become in main prose (white listing is easier to specify): """If TLP is offered, a TAXII server forwards STIX documents marked TLP Red to trusted destinations only (tag x)""" and in conformance section for level so-and-so: """A conforming implementation MUST guarantee clause (tag x)""" Or something like this. Caveat - I do not know, if the latter approach would help here, just wanted to mention, that this may reduce the shouting and ease the reading without giving way for interoperability issues. Being able to automatically extract normative statements by detecting shout-outs from a prose specification is always nice, as it eases testing for correctness and interoperability of implementations. In my experience every real world spec, will need exemption rules and amending to the extraction process. All the best, Stefan. Am 21.11.16 um 18:56 schrieb Bret Jordan (CS): Agreed... Too often we look at these documents through the lens of a developer and what a product can and can not do. Bret ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* cti@lists.oasis-open.org <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Peter F Brown <peter@peterfbrown.com> *Sent:* Monday, November 21, 2016 10:28:42 AM *To:* duncan@sfractal.com; cti@lists.oasis-open.org *Subject:* RE: [cti] Normative Statements +1 Many TCs get wrapped around the axle on this. Testing compliance is not limited to testing some piece of running code, it can ask be adored as here to conforming with some procedural requirement (as often happens in many ISO standards, such as ISO 9000, 27000, etc. Regards, Peter Sent from my phone. Apologies for brevity, levity, and laxity: its hard to write on a moving planet *From: *duncan@sfractal.com <mailto:duncan@sfractal.com> *Sent: *Monday, 21 November 2016 17:05 *To: *cti@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org> *Subject: *RE: [cti] Normative Statements "I would argue that if a normative statement can not be tested then it is not actually normative and is just a guideline." "MUST all normative statements be testable? " I disagree. Using the example below "Implementations of TAXII servers that offer TLP MUST NOT forward STIX documents marked TLP Red to non-trusted destinations". This is untestable BUT when the it does occur - you can say "you violated the spec". If it's non-normative, then it is not a violation if you do it. I vote normative wording if we require it, even it if not testable in all cases. Duncan Sparrell s-Fractal Consulting LLC iPhone, iTypo, iApologize -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [cti] Normative Statements From: "Wunder, John A." <jwunder@mitre.org <mailto:jwunder@mitre.org>> Date: Wed, November 16, 2016 8:47 am To: Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com <mailto:Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>>, Eric Burger <Eric.Burger@georgetown.edu <mailto:Eric.Burger@georgetown.edu>> Cc: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org>" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org>> As you guys are reviewing the documents can you be checking for this? I just looked through all of the MUST requirements across the documents and while there might be a couple ones in a gray area (its testable if you have the source data, but you cant look at content absent the source data and validate it) but for the most part I think were in good shape. The SHOULD requirements are obviously a bit harder to evaluate and we could probably debate for years about them but if you see anything especially bad definitely bring it up. John *From: *<cti@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org>> on behalf of Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com <mailto:Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>> *Date: *Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 8:07 AM *To: *Eric Burger <Eric.Burger@georgetown.edu <mailto:Eric.Burger@georgetown.edu>> *Cc: *"cti@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org>" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org>> *Subject: *Re: [cti] Normative Statements I would argue that if a normative statement can not be tested then it is not actually normative and is just a guideline. It should be noted that we aren't even talking about "automated testing" - the proposed normative statement is not even testable in the mind of a human reading the document, because they have no idea if the things in the bundle were intended by the producer to be related or not. As such, I agree with Alan that such statements serve little purpose in a spec and belong more in a set of implementor guidelines. -- Sent from my mobile device, please excuse any typos. Eric Burger --- [cti] Normative Statements --- From: "Eric Burger" <Eric.Burger@georgetown.edu <mailto:Eric.Burger@georgetown.edu>> To: cti@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org> Date: Tue, Nov 15, 2016 7:28 PM Subject: [cti] Normative Statements ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MUST all normative statements be testable? I suppose it depends on what we mean by testable. A few have said that not everything that we have as normative statements are not, in fact, testable. I would offer that is a proof point of something that cannot be normative. Let us take an example: Implementations of TAXII servers that offer TLP MUST NOT forward STIX documents marked TLP Red to non-trusted destinations. This sounds like a fantastic requirement. However, this is what that requirement translates to when we write code: Implementations of TAXII servers that offer TLP MUST NOT forward STIX documents marked TLP Red to non-trusted destinations, unless they feel like it because it is impossible for the sender to know what the recipient does once they receive and decode the document. Now we can have such statements in requirements documents or system conformance documents. However, they are meaningless in protocol or document definition documents. In fact, I would offer they are dangerous. Let us consider this example. I am a consumer of CTI technology. I read the specs, and a TAXII server MUST NOT forward a STIX document marked TLP Red to non-trusted destinations. I am looking at a vendor, and their product is fully compliant with the TAXII specification. Too bad for me there is no way to hold them to the fire if they do improper forwarding. Its way too late to call the Protocol Police. While I am on my soapbox, since I just saw a dialog here along the lines of Bundles SHOULD not have related objects in them, I would like to reiterate the best practice for MUST/SHOULD/MAY. * *MUST* is something that the implementation must do. If it is something the implementation must do, it should be possible to test for it, because if it is something it must do, one clearly can check to see if it does not do it. * *SHOULD* is something that the implementation MUST do, UNLESS there is an enumerated reason not to do it. That is the formulation for SHOULD: The implementation SHOULD implement X, unless Y or Z are present. [This highlights the Bundle argument: Bundles SHOULD NOT have related objects, UNLESS they are related. In English: the spec says NOTHING about the relatedness of objects in Bundles.] If you cannot enumerate when the SHOULD is not a MUST, then the SHOULD is a MAY. * *MAY* is something that might be nice, and if it is present, please dont barf on it. Note that given the formulation of SHOULD, specifically that the conditions under which the implementation does not do the SHOULD, leads us to a clearer formulation of SHOULD, namely the conditional MUST. Using the above example, instead of: The implementation SHOULD implement X, unless Y or Z are present. It is clearer to say: If Y and Z are not present, the implementation MUST do X. Beating the dead horse: every SHOULD and MAY in the specification non-linearly increases the likelihood of implementation errors and interoperability failures. The spec is already extremely hard to implement - JSON does not eliminate cyclomatic complexity! There is no reason to hand our adversaries which is supposed to make or more resilient to attack an infrastructure begging for attack. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php Agenda ( Tuesday 22/11 - 28/11 ) Go to calendar calendar (1 of 1 enabled)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]