RE: Subcommittees

If you are going to have a STIX 2.0, presumably it will evolve from 1.2 – ditto TAXII and CYBOX.

I don’t see the utility of discrete SCs for the different versions – on the contrary I can imagine many problems with this approach

Peter

 

Peter F Brown

Independent Consultant

CIPT

”Using Information Technologies to Empower and Transform”

200 S Barrington Ave., #49719

Los Angeles,
 CA 90049, USA

Tel: +1.310.694.2278

www.PeterFBrown.com

 

 

 

From:  [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Jordan, Bret

Sent: 18 June, 2015 11:59

To: 

Subject: [cti] Re: Subcommittees

 

I am going to actually change my proposal... :) 

 

I propose we create the following working groups, and make the working groups tied to work products..  This way we do not cross mix work.  

 

 

STIX 1.3 (the OASIS version of STIX 1.2)

TAXII 1.2 (the OASIS version of TAXII 1.1)

CYBOX 2.2 (the OASIS version of CYBOX 2.1)

STIX 2.0

TAXII 2.0

CTI-OUTREACH

 

 

Thanks,

 

Bret

 

 

 

Bret Jordan CISSP

Director of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTO

Blue Coat Systems

PGP Fingerprint: 62A6 5999 0F7D 0D61 4C66 D59C 2DB5 111D 63BC A303

"Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg." 

 

On Jun 18, 2015, at 12:36, Bret Jordan <> wrote:

 

I propose the creation of three subcommittees to start with:

 

STIX

TAXII

CYBOX

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

Bret

 

 

 

Bret Jordan CISSP

Director of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTO

Blue Coat Systems

PGP Fingerprint: 62A6 5999 0F7D 0D61 4C66 D59C 2DB5 111D 63BC A303

"Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg."