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 Augmented version of the Motion by Trey & Bret.


On 7/31/2018 3:15 PM, Trey Darley 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
> Cheers,
> Trey
> 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.

R. Jane Ginn, MSIA, MRP
Secretary, Cyber Threat Intelligence Technical Committee (CTI TC)

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