FYI on OpenC2 in ITU

The ITU will be sending a liaison to the OpenC2 TC that are anxiously awaiting OpenC2 (my words â theirs are more sedate). But there will be some hurdles. Iâve started a wiki page on our ops github (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/openc2-tc-ops/wiki/ItuProcessForOpenC2Adoption) to attempt to explain their procedures in a way that will help us help them in adopting OpenC2. I need to fill it out more. The purpose of this email (besides telling about their desire to adopt our work and informing about the wiki page so youâll keep after me to finish it) is to pass on some information from their report concerning our work. An attempted translation will follow:

It was agreed that:

Â - These LS are not a request to start NWI in SG17 and SG17 is not being requested to produce more work than OASIS on the topic

Â - The âwrappingâ of NWI from OASIS can only occur when OpenC2 is a full standard

Â - Then either the âwrappingâ will happen by reference or by full interpretation in SG17 in each language

Â - That when this work will be finished in OASIS there should be only 1 Recommendation produced, not 3.

Â - The incubation mechanism should not be changed and all the ITU-T rules and working methods at current stage should apply, e.g. A.5 (unnecessary in the case of OASIS) and A.25

Â - On the comparison with other OASIS standards, that STIX was adopted but on an old (incompatible version). STIX is in final ballot and should be approved during this SG17 meeting (note from Chairman, and indeed it passed its ballot)

LS is Liaison Statement. â what we sent them. A âNew Work Itemâ (NWI) is how they track their work and they are a political hot potato. Some administrations (ITU-speak for governments, recall ITU is an UN agency), especially the ones that foot most of the bill (usually led by US) desire that the ITU should not duplicate the work of other SDOâs (Standards Development Organizations) â good news for us. There has been some debate whether a NWI should be opened if ITU knows it wants to adopt the work of another SDO (which is what they did with STIX â and upset some since its been languishing for a few years with nothing going on in ITU but waiting for OASIS). At this meeting Canada proposed that OpenC2 should NOT be a NWI since ITU isnât going to do anything yet. They agreed a NWI should be opened once OASIS has Standards (not Committee Specs) and ITU is ready to approve it.

The third bullet is about whether ITU passes a one sentence standard that says âdo what OASIS xxxx saysâ or they republish our text in their format. The first is called âby referenceâ and the second is called âby incorporationâ. Those who pay the translation bills (Canada was lead on this issue) usually want reference since reduces budget of ITU. OASIS does not have a policy and leaves it up to TC to request which it wants. Most in the past (and I think personally is better) go for âby incorporationâ since it is usually translated (see wiki page for more)

The fourth bullet is significant. They donât want us using up most of the numbers in the X series. I do think we could get away with 3 but I do know they would balk at tens to hundreds. They liked how STIX went from six to one and assume we could do similar. We can debate this later on.

The fifth bullet is about their process. I wonât bother explaining incubation since they agreed we could be normal. Iâll explain âA.5â on wiki page. Basically it means follow the process ITU and OASIS worked out or CAP, XACML, SAML, etc.

The last bullet is about STIX â but reading between the lines â it basically says go standard once you know what you are doing and then keep putting out standards. They donât want to be in state STIX is right now which is the CS is the real answer and the standard is the old version â because they can only adopt the OASIS standard not the CS. So they are hopeful STIX 2.1 will go standard soon.

Duncan Sparrell

sFractal Consulting LLC

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize

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

openc2 message