Notes from June 6 Working Call

["Wunder, John A." <jwunder@mitre.org>]

All,

 

Here are the notes for the June 6 Working Call: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z2a3o7dS9GRlvB0Q_-A0Tk65IeDpkPfMVxjWogz8U_M/edit#heading=h.1c46aovet77

 

Bottom Line Outcomes:

 

• Public Comment Review (for comment #7): Will defer to 2.1. All comments and our notional resolutions can be seen here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YOPONeKzc6Uu1A1MS3WkICG26LKLQOWdr-KBDzM8K6Y/edit. We’ll bring this topic up next week on the full TC call to ask for unanimous consent to approve it and proceed to open a ballot on a Committee Specification.

 

• Author property: Will be added as an array of strings to Report, Intel Note, and Opinion. Text will make it clear how author is different than created_by_ref. The editors will make the necessary updates in the Working Concepts document and we’ll bring this up for approval on the TC call next week.

 

• Location: Discussion focused on whether location should be a separate SDO…we had decent consensus on that point at the F2F but some people still seem to be uncomfortable. We will list the pros and cons, discuss on the list, and proceed to a ballot if necessary. The Location SDO/type is being work in the Working Concepts document (https://docs.google.com/document/d/15qD9KBQcVcY4FlG9n_VGhqacaeiLlNcQ7zVEjc8I3b4/edit#heading=h.4mmu2llmy610). Please review it there and if you have any pros/cons on whether location should be a separate SDO or a property on Identity/Infrastructure/Intrusion Set please provide them there, in e-mail, or on Slack.

 

We’ll have further conversation on Location on the lists, Slack, and most likely the working call next week.

 

Thanks,

John