Interface Spec, LSC issues

I apologize but I will be at FAIRCON and cannot attend LSC tomorrow.

âInterface Specâ

I took an action to start my view of â#5â â an interface spec. Before resolving the âwhere to put common stuffâ, I think LSC should first resolve the spec vs note issue which is tied up in whether everyone can buy into the concept of an interface spec. I have started it on my own repo (so we didnât have to prejudice OASIS by using spec or note template). Since I am proposing a spec, I used spec template. But if consensus is note, we can just let my repo stay in my space.

The first draft is at https://github.com/sparrell/openc2-oc2is/blob/master/oc2is.md and Iâd ask you to not worry about front matter and focus for now on Section 5 (conformance) and examples. Obviously they need a lot of cleanup and formatting and line numbers and â - but I thought Iâd at least get some black ink to get the concept across. Note it makes most sense once we have several APâs and several Transport Specâs but hopefully you get the idea.

âCompound commandâ issue â within scope or outside scope? We need to resolve thist so we have a clean interave with CACAO. Iâm am leaning toward âatomic onlyâ but just a leaning at this point. This is a LSC issue that needs LSC consensus and then it should be brought to TSC>

Similarly with the âH2M-etcâ issue. Is human interaction (H2H, H2M, M2H) within scope for OpenC2? Again this is a LSC issue that will need TSC concurrence. I am leaning towards M2M only but with recommendation (ie should) that other bodies should make up new words if our words with do (eg if you need a human âdenyâ, or if human needs an IPV4 target, or â)

Duncan

Duncan Sparrell

sFractal Consulting LLC

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize

I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info/

openc2-lang message