[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Preparing for the Face to Face: Profile scope and breadth
|
By all means, set up your straw poll and update the CRM to capture the email link From: duncan sfractal.com <duncan@sfractal.com> Joe, Readers may imply from the following that SLPF-24 was not a PR comment: The following issues were identified prior to the Public Review, but were not closed. I would like to allocate 30 minutes at the F2F Â â Â Profile scope and breadth (SLPF-24) I would like to point out that
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/openc2/email/archives/201812/msg00038.html is a PR comment on this topic. Yes it existed prior to PR, but it is also a PR issue. I would also like the link to this email included in CRM.
I think 30 minutes would be too short for all the topics you proposed in that section. Ideally Iâd like something like
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/openc2/CommandIdStrawPoll set up for this issue (I can do if you want) to provide a straw poll of where people stand. If a lot of people answer in a way that itâs
obvious Iâm a minority then I will give in gracefully. But if itâs only a few of us either way, or if many people feel as I do, then I think this topic would rate 30 min. I do think we are making a fundamental mistake setting an incorrect precedent for future
Atcutator Profiles (ie combining what I consider incompatible functionality in one profile as evidenced by no products today in the very large firewall market do âbothâ the profiles we are combining). Yes we can correct in future if Iâm correct (why I will
give in if Iâm only one who thinks this way because just like when I wrote an equivalent email to this one on âit should be JSONâ to CTI back when STIX 1.0 picked XML, I believe time will prove me correct). My reason for wanting the straw poll is to understand
where people stand. There is a difference between ânot objectingâ when someone proposes something and being for something. The F2F when this was discussed was scheduled for a time I could not attend so I would like time at this F2F to make my case unless itâs
obvious from the strawpoll that everyone understands the issue and itâs just me. Duncan Sparrell sFractal Consulting LLC iPhone, iTypo, iApologize I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info/ From: "duncan@sfractal.com" <duncan@sfractal.com> Joe, Excellent work! You set a very high bar for the rest of us (editors and SC cochairs) to meet. To allow independent threading, Iâll supply nit individual comments in separate emails. Duncan Sparrell sFractal Consulting LLC iPhone, iTypo, iApologize I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info/ From: Joseph Brule <jmbrule@radium.ncsc.mil> Actuator Profile Subcommittee, At the last monthly meeting, the Technical Committee tasked the editors of the specifications to assist in planning the agenda for the Face to Face. The scope of the tasking is to provide a listing of the comments to be resolved and
approximate time required for discussion. REQUEST: Please comment on the topics and time estimates for the Face to Face agenda. It would be especially beneficial if you could look at the CRM spreadsheet and github issues and provide comments in advance.
PROPOSED Actuator Profile Agenda: (Bottom Line Up Front: ) Actuator Profile Subcommittee Public Review Comments:
Â
Conformance Section (45 minutes)
Â
Refer to Language Specification Discussions (30 minutes)
Â
Relation to other specifications (15 minutes)
Â
Mechanical/ non-material (10 minutes) Actuator Profile Subcommittee Way Forward:
Â
Scope/ Breadth of Profiles (20 minutes)
Â
Committee Note: Actuator Profile Writing Guide (10 minutes)
Â
Future Profiles (10 minutes) Here is my logic or lack thereof to come up with the proposed agenda:
A spreadsheet was created (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mflX4n6XqZFWnOlw8wc4QxEWVAJJWQLxGHq415A4Qis/edit#gid=0
) that lists issues and provides a link to the email that generated the issue, a link to an issue on github and a pull request that attempts to resolve the issue. I would like to put the pull request in perspective, the pull requests are simply a suggestion
or an attempt to resolve the comment and request that you do violence with your red pens.
Please refer to the spreadsheet and/or the flurry of emails I sent out over the past couple days.
The following issues are 'mechanical' in nature. That is to say, they involve typos, wording, cross checking references etc. I estimate that the following issues will take less than ten minutes each to resolve and consensus via email
would be ideal. I would like to allocate approximately 15 minutes at the F2F. This is achievable if we can agree on most of these via email.
Â
Modify the examples in Annex C to include a direction argument and add prose explaining why the actuator field (without specifiers) may be populated.
(SLPF-1 and 2)
Â
Generate a Table of Contents for the MD version of the specification. The Language SC is looking into a way to do that automatically.
(SLPF-3)
Â
Correct grammatical, typographical and table corruption errors.
(SLPF-7, 10, 11 and 16)
Â
Cross check references to verify if normative or non-normative
(SLPF-8)
Â
Label sections as normative or non-normative. (SLPF-17)
Â
Create hyperlinks where appropriate (SLPF-9) The following issues actually impact the Language Specification. I believe we can resolve these quickly, but the actual resolution is subject to how a related issue in the Language specification is resolved. I would like to allocate
30 minutes at the F2F. We will need some time to determine the best way to incorporate, but much of this will be influenced in the language spec discussions, so it seems logical to avoid redundancy.
Â
Document semantics for common arguments in the Language Specification and simply reference in the SLPF.
(SLPF-5)
Â
Support ranges of IP addresses, that is include the ip_net target.
(SLPF-6)
Â
Compliance should map to the schema, not property tables
(SLPF-4)
Â
JADN as normative (SLPF-19) The following issues pertain to how the documents relate to the Actuator Profile. I would like to allocate 15 to 30 minutes at the F2F.
Â
References to the Language Specification. Version 1.0 or higher? Or simply Version 1.0
(SLPF-12 and 25)
Â
Need a section on transport (SLPF-18) The following issues relate to the conformance section of the specification. I would like to allocate 45 minutes at the F2F
Â
Create an Annex for the traceability matrix and the supporting information for the conformance section
(SLPF-13 and 14)
Â
Create more conformance clauses (SLPF-23 and 15) The following issues were identified prior to the Public Review, but were not closed. I would like to allocate 30 minutes at the F2F
Â
Validity of the 'Update' use case (SLPF-20)
Â
Error responses (SLPF-21)
Â
Profile scope and breadth (SLPF-24) Thank you VR Joe Brule Engineering (Y2D122) FNX-3, B4A335 410.854.4045 'Adnius ad retinedam puritem noster peciosus corporalis fluidorumâ' I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at
http://vsre.info/ |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]