[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [openc2-lang] Re: [EXT] [openc2-lang] RE: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [openc2-lang] mandatory vs optional, Header, id, version, timestamp, sender
OpenC2 is not a protocol. So how do you expect to do this during the handshake? Do we need to make OpenC2 a protocol?
Bret From: Sridhar Jayanthi <sridhar@polylogyx.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 10:36:01 PM To: Bret Jordan Cc: Brule, Joseph M; duncan@sfractal.com; openc2-lang Subject: Re: [openc2-lang] Re: [EXT] [openc2-lang] RE: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [openc2-lang] mandatory vs optional, Header, id, version, timestamp, sender I concur with Duncan and Joe about the need to make these fields optional. However, we need to make sure identification-related fields including versions and sender can be established during initial handshake. I am not overthinking this at this
time since there could be nuances that will become clear during our use-case exercises. As has been said by many before me, we may end up correcting our decision in some cases when we work through the use cases.
--------------------------------------
Sridhar Jayanthi
Chief Executive Officer
PolyLogyx LLC.
Transforming Cyber Security
Cell: +1-858-205-2252
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 12:29 PM, Bret Jordan
<Bret_Jordan@symantec.com> wrote:
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]