[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti] Re: version proposed change to STIX 2.0 RC3
I have no objections to this proposal.
From: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.
com >
Date: Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 11:34 AM
To: "Coderre, Robert" <rcoderre@verisign.com>, Marlon Taylor <Marlon.Taylor@hq.dhs.gov>, Richard Struse <Richard.Struse@hq.dhs.gov>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [cti] Re: version proposed change to STIX 2.0 RC3
Please find attached a slightly modified version of the proposed text to incorporate clearer (hopefully) language on created/modified timestamp that Marlon suggested.
I’ve also added a change that John Wunder suggested around precision of the created/modified timestamps.
allan
From: "Coderre, Robert" <rcoderre@verisign.com>
Date: Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 8:54 AM
To: Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com >, "Taylor, Marlon" <Marlon.Taylor@hq.dhs.gov>, "Struse, Richard" <Richard.Struse@hq.dhs.gov>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: version proposed change to STIX 2.0 RC3
We agree with this proposal with Marlon’s amendment.
From: cti@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.
org ] On Behalf Of Allan Thomson
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 11:11 AM
To: Taylor, Marlon; Struse, Richard; cti@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [cti] Re: version proposed change to STIX 2.0 RC3
Hey Marlon – that was exactly the intent and I remember reading/reviewing text that says so.
I’ll double check and make sure that change is clear.
allan
From: "Taylor, Marlon" <Marlon.Taylor@hq.dhs.gov>
Date: Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 7:57 AM
To: "Struse, Richard" <Richard.Struse@HQ.DHS.GOV>, Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com >, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: version proposed change to STIX 2.0 RC3
Would the author of the proposal yield to an amendment? If so, add “When the object is initially created the modified time and created time MUST match”.
I yield my time.
-Marlon
From: cti@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.
org ] On Behalf Of Struse, Richard
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 10:33 AM
To: Allan Thomson; cti@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [cti] RE: version proposed change to STIX 2.0 RC3
FYI - I agree with Allan’s proposed changes on version and thank Allan and his developers for their efforts on this!
From: cti@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.
org ] On Behalf Of Allan Thomson
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 9:56 AM
To: cti@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [cti] version proposed change to STIX 2.0 RC3
All –
As agreed on the last working call I was asked to send the proposed text changes for the version number proposal. See the attached deck for intro.
Proposal: Remove version number and rely on created/modified timestamps to provide the versioning information.
Rationale: Implementers more easily can generate versioning.
I made changes to Part 1 and Part 2 (not attached). If anyone wants to see Part 2 changes (primarily changes to STIX objects property tables to be consistent with change to version property) let me know and I can send the doc.
Allan
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]