Re: [openc2] What is Symantec's position? What are the user's opinions?

Subject: Re: [openc2] What is Symantec's position? What are the user's opinions?

Hi folks,

Usually I avoid jumping in on TC's debates but on this, please, can I ask everyone to take a deep breath and defer any more exchanges along this line? I see that there are concerns and disagreements although from the emails I have read I don't know what they are. I would like to help you all find resolutions that will let you focus again on the work itself.

I will follow up with your chairs and with all of you. I have offered to Joe to attend your next meeting if that can help. Often, I find that frustrations like these stem from different expectations about how things should be done. If that is the case here, I can help both interpret the rules and explain your options.

Again, more to follow once I have a better understanding of what underlies this.

Best,

/chet

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 7:40 AM, <duncan@sfractal.com> wrote:

I think these discussions should be on the mailing list for transparency. I am not against changes to make us work better. I confess I've made mistakes. I've been in standards for 37 years yet I'm still willing to learn different ways to move forward. But I don't think 'starting over' does anything but delay.

It's worrisome to me that Symantec would let you stop working on OpenC2. That, combined with the fact Symantec has not submitted any actuator profiles for the very many Symantec products that would be impacted by OpenC2, tells me Symantec is not wholly behind moving this specification forward.

It's the users who are the purchasers of actuators who benefit most from OpenC2. It's the actuator vendors who are impacted the most, especially the established actuator vendors that will have to make changes to their products. OpenC2 will cost them money (to make the changes) and lose them their vendor lock-in from their proprietary C2 interfaces. So it's not surprising they aren't trying their hardest to get this spec out.

If the users let a vendor take their ball and home, then shame on us. Using Souni's _expression_, I recommend the users use their "power of the purse", and hold vendors accountable to OpenC2 interfaces whether they participate or not. And I recommend they recognize the difference between tactics for getting the spec out and tactics for slowing it down.

Duncan Sparrell
sFractal Consulting LLC
iPhone, iTypo, iApologize

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: presentation for TC meeting next week
From: Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Date: Fri, November 17, 2017 5:34 pm
To: Trey Darley <trey@newcontext.com>
Cc: Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>, "Kemp, David P"
<dpkemp@radium.ncsc.mil>, "Brule, Joseph M" <jmbrule@radium.ncsc.mil>,
"Fai, Joyce" <Joyce.Fai@gd-ms.com>, dave.lemire
<dave.lemire@g2-inc.com>, "Jyoti Verma (jyoverma)" <jyoverma@cisco.com>,
"duncan@sfractal.com" <duncan@sfractal.com>, "Yu, Sounil"
<sounil.yu@bankofamerica.com>

Speaking for myself, I completely agree with what Trey and Alan have said. TBH, I am nearing the edge of just walking away from openc2. We have fundamental problems and issues in this TC, and we need to resolve them.

At this point I would also support a complete reboot and rechartering of the TC, or a separate working group in ETSI or IETF.

Bret

Sent from my Commodore 128D

PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050

--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

/chet
----------------
Chet Ensign
Director of Standards Development and TC Administration
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
http://www.oasis-open.org

Primary: +1 973-996-2298
Mobile: +1 201-341-1393

openc2 message