[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [cti] Groups - November 2020 - Monthly Call - Session 2 uploaded
Hi Jane, Thank you for the minutes. Please let me clarify my points as to the custom objects/SEP conversation below. (I am afraid it might be a little confusing.) > Ryusuke Masuoka > [Wants to make sure custom objects are maintained] > Richard Struse > [Wants to make sure we maintain the validation for custom objects] > Ryusuke Masuoka > I am very insistent that we cover this in the Interop Committee Note What I would like to see is that TIP implementations at least
ignore SDOs they do not understand, not raise errors.
I am insistent on this because there were TIP implementations that raise errors for about-to-be-deprecated custom objects they do not understand.
I am afraid that this will hamper adoption of SEP as people would hesitate
to start using the SEP mechanism to introduce new SDOs if there are TIP implementations to raise errors when they see SDOs they do not understand.
Through discussions on this issue on this CTI ML, I understand
this have to be reflected in the Interop Documents, not
in the STIX standard.
And I understand what Rich told was that TIP implementations should process the STIX files with unknown SEP SDOs as long as they are STIX conformant as they are supposed to share the STIX as is. (Rich, please fix this if any misunderstanding.) Regards, Ryu From: cti@lists.oasis-open.org <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
On Behalf Of Jane Ginn Submitter's message
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]