OpenC2 Language Specification WD04 is out for review by the TC. One of my comments I have made as proposed change using github. I am proposing command_id/version/timestamp be 'top level' parameters (peers with action/target/actuator/command_options) ie (1)not under command options and (2) not in a new 'header' top level field. I apologize for adding a 3rd choice to the ongoing debate but I feel this is a better solution than either of those currently on the table.
I made my proposal using github because comparing 3 alternatives overwriting each other in googledocs didn't look readable to me. I'm happy to put it in googledocs if it receives favorable consideration. But if we decide it's not the best way to go, I didn't want to dork the googledoc and make all 3 choices unreadable.
Several members feel these fields will be present most, if not all, of the time. Therefore, even though I personally think they should be optional (and required/optional is a separate issue from where they are structurally), I think they 'rate' top level.
Note that should the LSC decide any or all of the fields are required, then it is just a matter of changing the word optional to required in the informative text and more importantly in the property table. My personal opinion is 'required' in this case belongs in the transport spec and/or the actuator spec, not in the language due the IOT use case I presented last week in
https://github.com/oasis-tcs/openc2-lsc-usecases/blob/master/sFractalConsulting/17.no_resp_procid.md. But I'd like to focus more on the structure than the req/opt at this point.
I propose this be discussed at tomorrow's LSC meeting
Duncan Sparrell
sFractal Consulting LLC
iPhone, iTypo, iApologize