[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [EXT] [cti] Roadmap discussion and update
All,
I personally do not think going to market with short iterative releases is going to help with adoption. In fact, I think it will actually hurt adoption. If we do this what we will find is a fractured market of support for various versions of STIX 2. What
we need is the market to converge to a very strong and stable version of STIX.
Proposal:
1) I would propose that we keep doing two official working calls a week
2) We encourage the mini-groups to come back with solid proposals in the next 2-4 months
3) We dedicate the Fall F2F to Event/Incident & COA
4) We dedicate the Winter F2F to Infrastructure
5) We look to release STIX 2.1 in the early spring.
Bret
From: cti@lists.oasis-open.org <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Sarah Kelley <Sarah.Kelley@cisecurity.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 11:04:29 AM To: cti@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [EXT] [cti] Roadmap discussion and update CTI-TC, We wanted to send a follow-up email regarding the roadmap conversation that was started on the last monthly call. From our original list of items we wanted to have in STIX 2.1, this is where we stand: Finished:
Mostly done:
In Progress:
Still to come (or in mini-group):
As mentioned during the meeting(s), we aren’t making fast enough progress through our roadmap in order to get all of these objects into a fall release. We have three choices:
Which really leaves us with two choices:
The general consensus of the co-chairs (without unanimity) is that that the third option is the most logical at the moment. Setting a hard deadline of Sept 30 would allow us to get a 2.1 update out with important
new objects, but also allow us to give certain large topics (like COA, Infrastructure and Event) the full time and attention they need to get them right by pushing them to a later release. This would also allow our October F2F to focus on kick starting STIX
2.2. Given that this committee works via consensus and that the co-chairs do not decide anything unilaterally, we would like to open this conversation up for wider discussion. Please chime in and let everyone know
your preference. Thanks, Sarah Kelley Senior Cyber Threat Analyst Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC) 31 Tech Valley Drive East Greenbush, NY 12061 518-266-3493 24x7 Security Operations Center SOC@cisecurity.org - 1-866-787-4722 This message and attachments may contain confidential information. If it appears that this message was sent to you by mistake, any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and attachments
is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the message and any attachments.
. . . . . |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]