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

Yeah, we’ve made this decision for the 2.x series and at this point revisiting it is not really an option. This is not to say that we shouldn’t keep track of this discussion…as people implement 2.x support we should absolutely track and document lessons-learned, even those that would result in breaking changes, so we can incorporate them in to future releases across ALL topics but especially these more contentious ones.

It’s also important to keep in mind though that we’re really at the early stages of 2.x support, I still have conversations where people think STIX 2 is XML! I guess my point is that we need to move deliberatively forward based on what we’ve already decided, get experience coding 2.x support, and make sure we’re documenting these things.


On 10/4/17, 12:01 PM, "Trey Darley" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of trey@newcontext.com> wrote:

    On 02.10.2017 23:08:48, Bret Jordan wrote:
    > I was one of the ones that pushed against this. At the time I could
    > not see the value of having observable objects be first order
    > citizens. I admit that. But I am really beginning to question it. So
    > much so, that I think we may have gotten it wrong.
    Hi, Bret -
    The points you raise with regard to STIX Observed Data and SCO were
    already examined at great length during the Great Arglebargle Debate
    of 2016. In due course of time, the TC reached consensus on the
    current approach and work progressed from there.
    Whether or not the approach we took was the *ideal* technical solution
    is irrelevant. STIX 2.0 went through multiple CSDs (including multiple
    public comment periods during which concerns were raised and addressed
    by the community), then we progressed to a CS via a series of TC-wide
    The ship has sailed, Bret. We're not going to rip out and redo Parts
    3-5. The 2.0 specification is final and people are now busily
    implementing it.
    We have many pressing matters pertaining to the evolution of STIX 2.1
    (and beyond) demanding our collective attention and effort. Let's keep
    our focus on moving forward as a community.
    Director of Standards Development, New Context
    gpg fingerprint: 3918 9D7E 50F5 088F 823F  018A 831A 270A 6C4F C338
    "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
    necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to
    land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly
    overhead." --RFC 1925

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