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] [cti] Motion for an OASIS Open Repository for STIX Enhancement Proposals (SEPs)

I second the updated motion.

Allan Thomson
CTO (+1-408-331-6646)
LookingGlass Cyber Solutions <http://www.lookingglasscyber.com/>

ïOn 7/31/18, 3:15 PM, "Trey Darley" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of trey@newcontext.com> wrote:

    Thank you to Bret for providing additional precision to my motion to
    open the OASIS Open Repository for STIX Enhancement Proposals
    (SEPs). It is a fact of life that the TC working calls typically occur
    quite late in my day (as opposed to folks on the US Western Seaboard)
    so it does happen that from time to time I respond imperfectly to
    consensus reached on TC working calls, modulo the timeshift.
    Naturally, given that we did discuss this on the weekly TC working
    call at some length, I am grateful for the clarification which Bret
    has provided and do hereby amend my original motion to include the
    additional details which Bret outlines below.
    My motion, thus augmented, still stands. If there have been no
    objections by Tuesday, 07 August at 21h UTC Bret, Ivan, or I will
    submit the form [1] to request OASIS staff to create the repository.
    [1]: https://www.oasis-open.org/resources/tc-admin-requests/open-repository-request
    On 31.07.2018 21:52:27, Bret Jordan wrote:
    > I will second this only with the following caveats, otherwise the
    > motion does not address the concerns I had originally.
    > 1) I think the repos need to have a CTI prefix in their name, so I
    >    would propose we use the name: "cti-sep-repository"
    > 2) This repository will only be used for the following types of
    >    SEPs.
    >  * New STIX Domain Objects (SDOs)
    >  * New STIX Relationship Objects (SROs)
    >  * New STIX Cyber Observables (SCOs)
    >  * New STIX Object Extensions
    >     * These are named groups of properties.
    > 3) The following types of SEPs are out of scope for this repository
    >    and work:
    >  * Redefining an existing property on an object to add clarity or
    >    enhanced meaning.
    >  * For example, explaining double or triple tagging of data in a
    >    "tags" property.
    >  * Redefining the semantics of existing SDOs, SROs, and/or SCOs (or
    >    properties thereof) which are already defined in CSDs and/or CSs.
    >  * Adding to or redefining the semantics of STIX Patterning
    >    (including, but not limited to adding new elements, expressions,
    >    operators, or language elements).
    > 4) This repository and registry will be used for SEPs that are
    >    officially submitted to the TC by TC members or for SEPs created
    >    by the TC itself.
    > 5) We will in the coming weeks investigate a different option for
    >    registering enhancements / extensions from:
    >  * TC members that do not wish to submit their IPR to the TC
    >  * TC members that do wish to submit their SEP to the TC as long as
    >    it is unmodified.
    >  * Third-Parties that do not wish to submit their IPR to the TC
    >  * Third-Parties that do wish to submit their IPR to the TC
    > On the working call today I was okay with coming to middle ground to
    > address Allan's concerns, however, the motion did not capture what I
    > believe we agreed to on the call. If my caveats are accepted as part
    > of the motion, then I am okay with this moving forward.
    Director of Standards Development, New Context
    gpg fingerprint: 3918 9D7E 50F5 088F 823F  018A 831A 270A 6C4F C338
    "It is always something." --RFC 1925

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