OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cti message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [cti] type changing from "object" to "array" for cyber observable objects

Is the reasoning behind it explained anywhere? Whoever we've discussed
STIX 2.x so far with had their faces buried deeply in their palms
whenever they got to the part of the documentation that explained this
very concept.

Also, revising bad decisions, even if they were reached via concensus /
a previous debate can be healthy for a standard. Especially when the
only explanation we get each time we ask about this is "as thus has been
decideth" without any reasoning given.

Best regards,

On 29. sep. 2017 09:53, Trey Darley wrote:
> On 29.09.2017 09:43:26, Andras Iklody wrote:
>> 100% agreed! {"0":{}, "1":{}} is just ridiculous.
> All -
> Referring to STIX 2.0, Part 3, §2.5 "Observable Objects":
> "Each key in the dictionary SHOULD be a non-negative monotonically
> increasing integer, incrementing by 1 from a starting value of 0, and
> represented as a string within the JSON MTI serialization. However,
> implementers MAY elect to use an alternate key format if necessary."
> As anyone participating in standards development work knows,
> compromises are often necessary. The choice to standardize on a
> monotonically increasing integer was a compromise following a lengthy
> debate. Note, however, that this is a SHOULD. You're free to use
> whatever you like as a key provided it's a valid JSON string.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]