[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
I would like to dig a bit deeper here...
So are you suggesting that OpenC2 have some sort of channel binding with the protocol that is carrying it? Or are you suggesting that OpenC2 build in its own negotiation protocol that sits on top of the transport ?
Bret From: Sridhar Jayanthi <sridhar@polylogyx.com>
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 1:12:30 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 Bret,
I can see the "handshake" word may be misleading. I meant whatever initialization kicks off a connection between two OpenC2-compliant systems. No matter what carrier/protocol the OpenC2 command is riding on, the OpenC2 systems need to identify each other
and register the connection - that's a good time to exchange these once-per-session fields. In some ways we may make better progress on this if we get started with the threads (use cases).
Sridhar --------------------------------------
Sridhar Jayanthi
Chief Executive Officer
PolyLogyx LLC.
Transforming Cyber Security
Cell: +1-858-205-2252
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Bret Jordan
<Bret_Jordan@symantec.com> wrote:
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]