Re: [cti] OASIS CTI-wide resolution on the MTI serialization

From
Wade Baker <>
Date
2015-11-20T19:40:15+00:00
ID
cebcd2ac-5c67-4af2-b27e-745359db2acb@Spark
Thread
Re: [cti] OASIS CTI-wide resolution on the MTI serialization
I will gladly +1 this resolution.

--

Wade Baker

ThreatConnect

+1 571.205.8239

On Nov 20, 2015, 10:32 AM -0500, Trey Darley <>, wrote:

Hi, everybody -

I'm sure you are well aware of the seemingly endless MTI serialization

MTI debate (aka, JSON versus XML). Historically, standardization

efforts following the "rough consensus and running code" model have

been successful. Standardization efforts following the "endless

academic debate within committee" model have not fared so well. Rough

consensus and running code have gotten us to where we're at today and

it is that same model which will ultimately win the day.

There is a vocal minority within the CTI community who present a

chicken and egg scenario where we have to fix the model in stone

before we can decide on the MTI serialization yet no tangible progress

can be made on the model without a serialization in which technical

people can express their ideas in running code. It is time to cut that

Gordian Knot. As one of the co-chairs succintly put it yesterday, "One

fact, if we do not gain adoption greater than 18-20% of the market in

the next year or so, this standard will fade away in to obscurity,

regardless of how neat and perfect the model is. The model is

important, but not the most important. Adoption is the most important

criteria."

The TAXII SC has made phenomenal progress towards defining TAXII 2.0

and may in fact have draft work product by the end of this year. The

CybOX SC, while not quite as far along as the TAXII folks, is moving

rapidly towards a CybOX 3.0 draft spec. What do these SCs have in

common? They're not merely debating use cases in theoretical terms,

but simultaneously working through the actual issues on a technical

level using JSON notation.

Accordingly, the co-chairs are moving to close this debate so that we

can concentrate our efforts on addressing critical issues within the

STIX/CybOX models themselves.

This is in no way to discount the need to translate the refactoring

efforts into UML models for the final OASIS draft specifications. UML

modelling is putting the icing on the cake. Now is the time to

actually *bake* the cake.

Likewise, the co-chairs recognize that there will be communities of

interest requiring alternative serialization formats (XML, protobufs,

JSON-LD, OWL, etc). The OASIS TC has a role to play in helping to

standardize these alternative representations to ensure

interoperabilitity. However, that work effort lies in the future.

First we must complete the task at hand.

Supporters of the resolution:

* Aharon Chernin (Soltra)

* Alexander Foley (Bank of America)

* Bernd Grobauer (Siemens)

* Bret Jordon (Blue Coat)

* David Eilken (Soltra)

* Ivan Kirillov (MITRE)

* Jason Keirstead (IBM)

* Joep Gommers (EclecticIQ)

* John Anderson (Soltra)

* John Wunder (MITRE)

* Jon Baker (MITRE)

* Jonathan Bush (Soltra)

* Mark Davidson (MITRE)

* Richard Struse (DHS)

* Sergey Polzunov (EclecticIQ)

* Trey Darley (Soltra)

And with that, I present to you the formal resolution text as agreed

upon by the co-chairs and hereby motion to put the proposal to a

formal TC-wide vote. Can I get a second to the motion?

<snip

Resolved:

=========

The CTI community will embrace a JSON/JSON Schema-based MTI

representation for the TAXII 2.0, STIX 2.0, and CybOX 3.0 refactoring

efforts.

Elaboration:

============

By adopting an MTI representation, we are explicitly requiring any

vendor or software product claiming CTI-compatibility to minimally

support the JSON serialization. Vendors are free to define and support

additional serializations (XML, protobufs, etc.) to address their

specific use cases, but if they do not support the MTI serialization,

their products are not CTI-interoperable and they cannot claim to

support the CTI standards.

The committee chairs recognize the need for additional optional

serialization formats, either now or in the future. The committee

chairs are prepared to support standardizing alternative serialization

formats for interoperability purposes in collaboration with the

interested parties but until the TC has approved the STIX 2.0, TAXII

3.0 and CybOX 3.0 specifications we as a community do not have the

bandwidth to support this effort.

Regardless of what alternative serialization formats may be defined

and standardized in the future, the JSON MTI will remain the "must be

this tall to ride" in terms of CTI standards compliance.

</snip

--

Cheers,

Trey

--

Trey Darley

Senior Security Engineer

4DAA 0A88 34BC 27C9 FD2B A97E D3C6 5C74 0FB7 E430

Soltra | An FS-ISAC & DTCC Company

www.soltra.com

--

"It is easier to move a problem around (for example, by moving the

problem to a different part of the overall network architecture) than

it is to solve it." --RFC 1925