Re: [openc2-lang] We need your input on: mandatory vs optional, Header,

Danny – I believe that the language spec should only define something as mandatory if it’s a fundamental feature and useful across all implementations *and* it helps simplify both specification and implementation/understandability to make it mandatory. This is the approach taken in most other protocols.

Otherwise whether an action, field, value…etc is mandatory or optional is highly dependent on the use case and the actuator that is implementing it.

Allan

From: <openc2-lang@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Danny Martinez <danny.martinez@g2-inc.com>
Date: Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 4:42 PM
To: Duncan Sparrell <duncan@sfractal.com>
Cc: openc2-lang <openc2-lang@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [openc2-lang] We need your input on: mandatory vs optional, Header, id, version, timestamp, sender

All,

I have not weighed in until now because I do not entirely understand what the issue is here. As I understand it is not whether these fields should exist at all, but rather if the fields should be mandatory or optional. My problem is why is the LCS even having this conversation? It seems more of an implementations consideration question to me. In effect I think both arguments are valid potential implementations of the OpenC2 language.

The question then comes in. Well if we leave everything up in the air to be implemented any which way then we will never have interoperability. I agree and this is precisely why I have been a big advocate of having a "minimum implementations to conform". It is one thing to say my implementation is viable, and another to say my implementation interoperates with other implementation. Currently when we create a reference implementation we have the benefit to "fix the fight" we can choose what happens on both sides of the communications path. This will not always be the case.

From a language spec perspective I believe these options should be "optional", but I would not be oppose to making them "mandatory" for a particular implementation. If this implementation ends up being our "minimum implementation to conform" then in I agree that these options should be "mandatory".

V/R

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 4:04 PM, <duncan@sfractal.com> wrote:

So 5 of the 29 LSC members have weighed in within 24 hours. Ideally I'd like to give at least another day or so to hear from a few others - and not just because my view is losing at the moment :-).

And it's a slightly more nuanced vote that 3 to 2 since I read Dave's note as for most of Allan's proposal but agreeing with me that timestamp should be optional (ie for timestamp its 3/2 the other way).

Everyone else - please let us know your opinions. Even if your opinion is "I don't care either way, just get on with it" - that is valuable input also (and shows you are listening and care).

Duncan Sparrell

sFractal Consulting LLC

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [openc2-lang] Re: [EXT] [openc2-lang] RE: [Non-DoD Source] RE:
[openc2-lang] mandatory vs optional, Header, id, version, timestamp,
sender
From: Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Date: Thu, January 25, 2018 3:29 pm
To: "Brule, Joseph M" <jmbrule@radium.ncsc.mil>, "'duncan@sfractal.com'"
<duncan@sfractal.com>, openc2-lang <openc2-lang@lists.oasis-open.org>

So Duncan and Joe are against it. Allan, Bret, and Dave are for it.

Bret

--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

Danny Martinez

Cybersecurity Engineer

G2, Inc.

302 Sentinel Drive, Suite 300

Annapolis Junction, MD 20701

Mobile: 407-257-0031

openc2-lang message