[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti] Incident Extension Draft
First of, Jeff - thanks to you and the team that presumably worked to put together this extension proposal. Much appreciated to all of you. Regarding top-level vs property-extension question that you raised and Jane replied to. I would strongly suggest sticking with the your current proposal as a property-extension and not making it a top-level extension. The primary reason that incident has remained a contentious issue in the TC is that there are multiple definitions of incident and its unlikely to achieve consensus due to the multiple use cases that can have incident as a core part of their data model. As we know there are multiple examples of incident workflows throughout the industry and we need to approach this particular data model challenge with modularity in mind. Not assuming one teamâs view is the only view. I suggest we stay with your proposed property-extension to avoid all the problems that a top-level extension brings. It also means that if people find a core part of your incident important and want to use it with their additional aspects of incident then they can do that more easily even if there are naming conflicts in properties. This is why we preferred and suggested using property-extension as the primary mechanism to extend STIX and *NOT* using top-level extension. Allan
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]