Correct. Hashing won't provide that capability.
Relationships will provide what you're looking for.
-Marlon
From: Jason Keirstead
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:56:04 AM
To: Taylor, Marlon
Cc: Mates, Jeffrey CIV DC3/DCCI; ;
Subject: RE: [cti] RE: Versioning Background Docs
Apologize for my confusion but I don't really understand what is being discussed in this thread.
Are people talking about IDs or Versions? What does hashing have to do with versioning?
I (hope?) people are not advocating to simply hash the contents of the object and use that as a version? That is not workable. A version has to be continually incrementing. I need to be able to look at a version and know if it is the latest version or if it
is stale. You can't do that with hashes.
-
Jason Keirstead
STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
www.ibm.com/security | www.securityintelligence.com
Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown
"Taylor,
Marlon" ---03/14/2016 11:42:28 AM---Hi All, Jeff and I spoke offline and we are in agreement with the hash based approach. Some takeaway
From: "Taylor, Marlon" <>
To: "Mates, Jeffrey CIV DC3/DCCI" <>, "" <>
Cc: "" <>
Date: 03/14/2016 11:42 AM
Subject: RE: [cti] RE: Versioning Background Docs
Sent by: <>
Hi All,
Jeff and I spoke offline and we are in agreement with the hash based approach. Some takeaways:
- cleared up "shallowness" of shallow objects
- conveyed the idea of relationships which contain arrays of ids (he calls them link aggregators)
As we finalize objects across the TC we can go into object-specific required fields. Ex: should every Indicator have an observable?
Keep up the feedback.
-Marlon
