[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [EXT] [cti] Request for clarification on the effects of missing sponsorships
Marco â You are correct â what is at risk with respect to Course of Action is the STIX 2.1 changes to the object. If, due to lack of sponsorship, we are required to remove the 2.1 additions/changes to Course of Action, the specification will revert to the Course of Action as specified in STIX 2.0. Does that answer your question? Rich From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of "Caselli, Marco" <marco.caselli@siemens.com> Dear all, I am writing this email to ask for some clarifications about the effects of a missing sponsorship for some STIX 2.1 objects. From our last call, I understood that âInfrastructureâ and âCourse of Actionâ are at risk of being removed from the standard. In this regard, I was wondering about the fact that, while âinfrastructureâ is a new object, âCourse of Actionâ was already introduced in STIX 2.0. If I do not see any technical issue in removing âInfrastructureâ (besides the effort of going through the whole standard and ensuring integrity), would not the removal of âCourse of Actionâ impact backward compatibility? As an alternative, could the missing sponsorship mean going back to the STIX 2.0 representation of âCourse of Actionâ? Best regards Marco
|
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]