[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: OpenC2 Language Specification draft for approval
To progress a working draft to CSD a simple motion suffices and triggers the public review for people outside of the TC like so (in the suggested It is for CS where a ballot is required. Sample motion in the current case could be: "I move that the TC approve the OpenC2 Language Specification V1.0 Working Draft 03 and all associated artifacts packaged together in https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/61772/oc2ls-v1.0.0-wd03.zip as a Committee Specification Draft 01 and designate the PDF version of the specification as authoritative. I further move that the TC approve submitting the aforementioned Committee Specification Draft 01 for 30 days of public review and direct the Chair perform and tasks as required by TC Admin to facilitate that issuance." /Stefan On 12/10/17 18:51, Jason Keirstead wrote: > Just my opinion - I think one of the things not being considered here is > how long it takes for a ballot. > > While there is no official oasis rule on the time-frame, a ballot for a > CSD has to be open for a *reasonable* period of time to allow TC members > to vote. Given the importance of a CSD, that time-frame should be at > least in the two week range to account for people's schedules and > vacations etc. > > If you are pre-planning to do 4 CSDs, you're basically pre-writing-off 2 > months of time waiting for ballots, as you can't make any material > changes to the document while people are voting. > > - > Jason Keirstead > STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems > www.ibm.com/security > > Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown > > > > > From: Duncan <duncan@sfractal.com> > To: <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org> > Date: 10/11/2017 05:45 PM > Subject: Re: [openc2] OpenC2 Language Specification draft for > approval > Sent by: <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > Allan, > Yes I am proposing a different approach from CTI. I would not word it as > ‘more immature’ but I do agree it will take more ballots. I’m just > trying to incrementally get full agreement on I think we have already > reached agreement on. If nothing else, this should draw out issues if > there are any in what we thought we’d already agreed to. My > understanding of the CSD process is that it was designed to allow this > incremental approach. The current work plan calls for us reaching CSD04 > before going for CS. Ie we have broken the work down into 4 increments. > Quickie OASIS searches show 212 standards have made it to CSD04 before > approval. 167 made it to CSD05. 2 have even made it to CDS10. Hopefully > we don’t make it to 10 for no other reason than that would take 10 month > and we are hopefully to finish sooner than that :-) > > iPhone, iTypo, iApologize > > Duncan Sparrell > sFractal Consulting, LLC > The closer you look, the more you see > _____________________________ > From: Allan Thomson <_athomson@lookingglasscyber.com_ > <mailto:athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 4:08 PM > Subject: Re: [openc2] OpenC2 Language Specification draft for approval > To: <_duncan@sfractal.com_ <mailto:duncan@sfractal.com>>, > <_openc2@lists.oasis-open.org_ <mailto:openc2@lists.oasis-open.org>> > > > Duncan – I’m only comparing the process in which STIX/TAXII followed for > CSD process vs google doc review. > > The STIx/TAXII community spent significant time on the google doc (as it > was easier to revise/edit) and getting that close enough to the 95% of > what a final CSD would look like. > > It sounds like the OpenC2 TC want to follow a route where the CSD is > much more immature and therefore will require many more ballots/edits. > > I’m only one voice and observing the difference between the processes. > Whether one is better than the other, time will tell. > > Allan > > *From: *<<_openc2@lists.oasis-open.org_ > <mailto:openc2@lists.oasis-open.org>> on behalf of > "_duncan@sfractal.com_ <mailto:duncan@sfractal.com>" > <_duncan@sfractal.com_ <mailto:duncan@sfractal.com>>* > Date: *Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 12:37 PM* > To: *"_openc2@lists.oasis-open.org_ > <mailto:openc2@lists.oasis-open.org>" <_openc2@lists.oasis-open.org_ > <mailto:openc2@lists.oasis-open.org>>* > Subject: *[openc2] OpenC2 Language Specification draft for approval > > Alan, > We did review the document at the last LSC, which I realize you could > not attend. I thought we did actually take alot of your comments into > account and made changes. For example you'll note that in the approval > copy the entire Goals section consists of "TBS". We took out the > existing text since you had issues with it so we kicked that text into > future versions. We did similar with your comments on serialization (ie > we took out the text and replaced with TBS) and did the same with the > text on actuator type. > > The substantive thing being agreed to is the list of actions. Do you > have issues with the action list? > > And let me point out again - the text being proposed for the CSD is only > 13 pages. The google doc is 150 pages. We are only including the parts > we think we've have reached agreement on. We are eating the whale in > smaller bites. > > Duncan Sparrell > sFractal Consulting LLC > iPhone, iTypo, iApologize > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [openc2] Groups - OpenC2 Language Specification uploaded > From: Allan Thomson <_athomson@lookingglasscyber.com_ > <mailto:athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>> > Date: Wed, October 11, 2017 3:13 pm > To: Duncan Sparrell <_duncan@sfractal.com_ > <mailto:duncan@sfractal.com>>, "_openc2@lists.oasis-open.org_ > <mailto:openc2@lists.oasis-open.org>" > <_openc2@lists.oasis-open.org_ <mailto:openc2@lists.oasis-open.org>> > Duncan – thanks for the heads up. > > At this point, I’ve reviewed a lot of the google document and I’m > concerned that we would push for a ballot on such raw text at this point. > > The specification is not at the level it needs to be for a CSD ballot, > in my opinion. > > I suggest we consider resolving a lot more of the content in > question/comments in the google document before spending time on a CSD. > I have not seen resolution of many of the issues to my comments alone > far less anyone elses comments. So therefore in all honesty I couldn’t > say I would vote yes for this document as a CSD 1.0. > > Regards > > Allan > > > > *From:*<_openc2@lists.oasis-open.org_ > <mailto:openc2@lists.oasis-open.org>> on behalf of Duncan Sparrell > <_duncan@sfractal.com_ <mailto:duncan@sfractal.com>>* > Date: *Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 11:45 AM* > To: *"_openc2@lists.oasis-open.org_ > <mailto:openc2@lists.oasis-open.org>" <_openc2@lists.oasis-open.org_ > <mailto:openc2@lists.oasis-open.org>>* > Subject: *[openc2] Groups - OpenC2 Language Specification uploaded > > /Submitter's message/ > The OpenC2 Language Subcommittee has been reviewing the OpenC2 Language > Specification, which is currently a 150-page google doc > at_https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l7rIZl_I_zZb1FQOMYZkfUI04O7sNasZ-ozUvMn5SMU_ > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1l7rIZl-5FI-5FzZb1FQOMYZkfUI04O7sNasZ-2DozUvMn5SMU&d=DwMFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=k6Q07xZDujljzkKqZUfupXFUDIHGIiq-Sl_u1bw0hyA&m=f0qHldQSCLiCxi5kmsHLFm1LLHlH8pWLiczTVY4RPUU&s=ZnN8-nRIesAUwk17-OzIIxPw5DmNUF8pgBzUjIiG3oM&e=>/. > This gdoc contains both agreed-to text, and text still being debated. > > The attached zip file contains 3 documents which contain the same > 13-page content in 3 file formats (pdf, word, html). It only contains > text that I believe the > Language Subcommittee has reached consensus (but not necessarily > unanimous agreement) on. > > I intend to make a motion at the Oct-18 TC meeting to approve this text > as a Committee Specification Draft (CSD). My intent is to document what > we have reached agreement on, and to draw out any issues we don’t > realize we have. Note a CSD is a draft - we will be adding to this > several times before we are ready for publishing as a verison 1.0.0 > Specification. This document contains a lot of boilerplate and the > substantive text is that it contains the list of agreed-to OpenC2 actions. > > The motion will be something along the lines of: > "I move that the OASIS OpenC2 TC approve the OpenC2 Language > Specification, Version 1.0.0, Working Draft revision 03 and all > associated artifacts packaged together in (Link to this page) as a > Committee Specification Draft and designate the PDF version of the > specification as authoritative." > > -- Mr. Duncan Sparrell > > *Document Name*:_OpenC2 Language Specification_ > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.oasis-2Dopen.org_apps_org_workgroup_openc2_document.php-3Fdocument-5Fid-3D61772&d=DwMFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=k6Q07xZDujljzkKqZUfupXFUDIHGIiq-Sl_u1bw0hyA&m=f0qHldQSCLiCxi5kmsHLFm1LLHlH8pWLiczTVY4RPUU&s=5QpUhO9AVaa6ttpx8chNT5966h8su-OuDnjyqO7JJjo&e=> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Description* > Open Command and Control (OpenC2) is a concise and extensible language to > enable the command and control of cyber defense components, subsystems > and/or systems in a manner that is agnostic of the underlying products, > technologies, transport mechanisms or other aspects of the implementation. _ > __Download Latest Revision_ > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.oasis-2Dopen.org_apps_org_workgroup_openc2_download.php_61772_latest_oc2ls-2Dv1.0.0-2Dwd03.zip&d=DwMFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=k6Q07xZDujljzkKqZUfupXFUDIHGIiq-Sl_u1bw0hyA&m=f0qHldQSCLiCxi5kmsHLFm1LLHlH8pWLiczTVY4RPUU&s=_u4-itSNlSIa5eYt6PyqMWiD2aa1hDs0NFc4SL3BOPg&e=>_ > __Public Download Link_ > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.oasis-2Dopen.org_committees_document.php-3Fdocument-5Fid-3D61772-26wg-5Fabbrev-3Dopenc2&d=DwMFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=k6Q07xZDujljzkKqZUfupXFUDIHGIiq-Sl_u1bw0hyA&m=f0qHldQSCLiCxi5kmsHLFm1LLHlH8pWLiczTVY4RPUU&s=kUdYz2grr-oQ64jDfpqUH92P5WD91zuu1P9A3x6rKV0&e=> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Submitter*: Mr. Duncan Sparrell* > Group*: OASIS Open Command and Control (OpenC2) TC* > Folder*: Working Drafts* > Date submitted*: 2017-10-11 11:44:35 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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_ > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.oasis-2Dopen.org_apps_org_workgroup_portal_my-5Fworkgroups.php&d=DwMFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=k6Q07xZDujljzkKqZUfupXFUDIHGIiq-Sl_u1bw0hyA&m=f0qHldQSCLiCxi5kmsHLFm1LLHlH8pWLiczTVY4RPUU&s=AX9ldqaUCgDLAPTo59QSRuHSaK0Okd27dle3Hbmcvgw&e=> > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]