[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 think this is the heart of my frustration with this TC. I agree with you, that there needs to be some sort of initialization process. Otherwise how is a server to even know what it is you are sending.
Some people are so worried about drawing an artificial line they are forgetting about interoperability. Any two vendors, under the current specification design, will be able to be fully compliant with the conformance clauses and will have no guarantee
that they will be able to talk to or work with anyone else.
I find that to be a fundamental problem. There is currently no guarantee for any vendor or device manufacturer that their implementation they build will ever work with anyone else’s solution.
For example a network device or firewall vendor could go off and build a solution based on all the verbs in OpenC2 and depending on how they implement it, it is possible that no one else will be able to talk to their equipment other than themselves.
Building standards is hard. And the longer we hold off on discussing the purple elephants in the room, the more likely this will never get adopted in mass.
Bret
Sent from my Commodore 64
PGP
Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]