TAXII 2.0 transport specification

Here are some updates and discussion points to the transport specification language. Sorry I cannot be there in Florida!

Passing the text to some folks who really know security, one thing they asked was why we did not just chose to use Suite B (RFC 6460). What I proposed is almost Suite B, so there would not be much of a significant change to what we’ve got proposed now. 

My concern with Suite B is there is a lot of FUD that the Cyber Act is really just an excuse for USG fishing. Mandating a NSA security suite may have bad optics. What do you think?

On Jan 7, 2016, at 10:59 PM, Mark Davidson <> wrote:

I had meant for this to go to the CTI list, and I got bit by autocomplete.

-Mark

From: <> on behalf of Mark Davidson <>
Date: Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 11:28 PM
To: "" <>
Subject: [cti-taxii] TAXII Materials Submission - TAXII Pre-Draft spec

All,

Please find attached the TAXII 2.0 pre-draft specification. As noted on the TAXII SC list and within the document itself, this document is intended to be a discussion platform and help drive consensus. The quality of the document is a bit uneven – we’d
 like to kindly request that readers attempt to get the “big picture” first and comment on specific wordings/phrasings second. Notably, if you think “Channels and Collections” are the wrong way to go, that would be a great thing to raise at the F2F.

Thank you and we look forward to seeing you at the F2F!

Mark and Bret

Attachment:
smime.p7s

Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature