Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] [openc2] Proposal for Custom Actuator Repository
I agree with the idea of a repository for ‘custom’ profiles. Speaking as a member in good standing of the TC (and not as chair nor as editor of the SLPF or any other capacity) it is my opinion that it should be an open repository. It is my opinion that this repository should be run through the actuator profile SC.
From: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Behalf Of Duncan
I believe it would be useful to have an open repository for “custom” actuator profiles. The current draft specifications allow for ‘extension’ by vendors or users, and they allow for actuator profiles other than those that are OASIS specifications. I use custom to distinguish the difference between actuator profiles being drafted as OASIS Specifications and those “custom” profiles being developed as an extension to a specification or to support a particular technology that does not yet have a specification. We have completed enough of the OpenC2 specifications that these custom profiles are creatable today for many security technologies, open source projects, and vendor products. Obviously anyone can create their own repo for this purpose. I feel it would be useful to have an OASIS repo for those willing to keep them in a common place.
I suggest we create a repo for custom actuator profiles. Note it would only be for those willing and others could be kept wherever the creators desire. Any objections to creating a custom AP repo?
There are two types of open source repositories as described in https://www.oasis-open.org/resources/tcadmin/github-repositories-for-oasis-tc-members-chartered-work#tc-open-source-repos-versus-repos-for-chartered-work. Both are world readable but one is only writable by TC members and one is writable by anyone who registers. Which type of repo should we use for the custom Actuator Profiles? I have a slight preference for it being oasis-tcs (ie requires TC membership) - just for the parochial reason that it would enourage membership in the TC. It’s also easier in that it does not require a TC vote. Any objections?
iPhone, iTypo, iApologize
sFractal Consulting, LLC
The closer you look, the more you see