I have tried to help you understand how this works in TAXII 2.1 and how you can make this work.
If you want to see something else, please write up a proposal. Please make sure to not break existing use cases with your proposal.
Sent from my Commodore 128D
Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
Not really. We can translate the pagination request and pass it on to
other internal tools, it doesn't have to be stored on the same tool that
has a taxii interface.
On 10.09.19 15:24, Bret Jordan wrote:
If you are going to provide pagination of the data, then by very
definition you will need to store the data. At this point it is no
longer streamed, but stored data. So you are going to have to solve the
problem of storing the data, even if that is for a short period of time.
But it will still need to be stored.
Sent from my Commodore 128D
PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
On Sep 10, 2019, at 3:16 PM, Andras Iklody <email@example.com
Again, writing a proposal is not something we will attempt again after
our previous attempts. We don't have the stamina or the will to go down
that route again.
We are currently investigating whether it makes sense for us at all to
add TAXII connectors or not, hence I was asking how this is supposed to
work with data that is not stored in a local database but streamed.
Pagination would still make a lot of sense since we don't want to barf
back massive amounts of data due to that blowing the memory limits that
the devices we are targeting will have. (as reference, the other project
we're working on:
If I understand your answers correctly this is currently out of scope.
From the previous mails, Jason's explanation of why this is an issue was
much more concise and to the point than my poor attempt so I'll just
"I agree with the problem;
The problem is rooted in the fact that assuming that a document has an
"insertion time", is assuming the document lives as-is in a database.
This all goes back to the "STIX and TAXII are not a database" mantra."
I hope that this is clear enough. If our issue is out of scope that's
fine too, again we're just looking for clarification, worst case it's
one fewer connector for us to implement :)
On 10.09.19 15:01, Bret Jordan wrote:
The current TAXII spec is addressing all of the use cases that have been
brought forward. If you would like some additional functionality,
please write up a proposal.
In regards to what you are doing. You have said that need to write a
solution to aggregate the data from multiple sensors. Since you are
writing the solution, you can write it how ever you need. If you need
to paginate data from that solution you are writing, then by definition
you will need to store that data for some period of time. So once
again, since you are writing the solution and needing to store the data
in a data store, you can easily solve this problem.
If TAXII is missing support for some use cases, please write up a
proposal for these use cases and how you would propose solving them, and
why current solutions do not meet those needs. I think that would
really help the technical committee understand what you need and why.
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: