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] TAXII definition of "Done"

I would also agree that TAXII features should also meet the STIX definition of "done" in order to be included in the spec.

Jason Keirstead
Lead Architect - IBM Security Connect

"Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who hustle." - Unknown

From:        "Kelley, Sarah E." <skelley@mitre.org>
To:        "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:        11/27/2018 04:56 PM
Subject:        [cti] TAXII definition of "Done"
Sent by:        <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>

As I mentioned on the working call today, we have imposed a very strict definition of âDoneâ for new features/objects in STIX, however, we have never agreed as a TC to impose the same rigorous standards to TAXII. Given the fact that some of the issues that prompted us to implement this definition came about when people attempted to implement TAXII, it seems only logical to me that we would impose the same standards to both specifications.
As a reminder, the definition of âDoneâ for STIX includes:
  1. Written specification text
  2. Proof of concept code from at least two different developers/companies
  3. Corresponding Interop tests
For some of the newer features in TAXII, namely TAXII query, it seems to make sense to me that it should be proved in code before we finalize it in the specification.
I wanted to bring this topic to the list and see what other people thought about this.
Sarah Kelley
Lead Cybersecurity Engineer, T8B2
Defensive Operations
The MITRE Corporation

 [attachment "image003.jpg" deleted by Jason Keirstead/CanEast/IBM]

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