Jeff,
Can you help me understand your perspective? In STIX 1.x, versioning was handled using the timestamp field (and would seem to align with your post, unless I’m mis-reading it) but I’m not sure I’ve seen any discussion about using timestamp for versioning in 2.0. Are you proposing that we use timestamps for versioning in 2.0, or am I misunderstanding your comment?
Thank you.
-Mark
On 3/14/16, 11:52 AM, "Mates, Jeffrey CIV DC3/DCCI" < on behalf of > wrote:
>My understanding is that in general versioning should be handled using the
>CTI Core "created_at" attribute which exists on both objects and
>relationships. If this changes any object with a deterministic hash would
>also have its GUID change. As such different versions of an object would
>respect each other's unique GUIDs thus protecting referential integrity.
>
>Even without a deterministic hash this would still be possible by simply
>generating a new GUID every time a new version of an object or relationship
>is produced.
>
>Jeffrey Mates, Civ DC3/DCCI
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Computer Scientist
>Defense Cyber Crime Institute
>
>410-694-4335
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [mailto:] On Behalf
>Of Jason Keirstead
>Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 11:27 AM
>To: Taylor, Marlon
>Cc: ; Mates, Jeffrey CIV DC3/DCCI;
>
>Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [cti] RE: Versioning Background Docs
>
>Are you saying that versions will only exist on relationship objects? How
>will that help me figure out if a given threat actor's description is the
>most recent.
>
>
>-
>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
>
>
>Inactive hide details for "Taylor, Marlon" ---03/14/2016 12:07:46
>PM---Correct. Hashing won't provide that capability. Relation"Taylor,
>Marlon" ---03/14/2016 12:07:46 PM---Correct. Hashing won't provide that
>capability. Relationships will provide what you're looking for.
>
>From: "Taylor, Marlon" <>
>To: Jason Keirstead/CanEast/IBM@IBMCA
>Cc: "Mates, Jeffrey CIV DC3/DCCI" <>,
>"" <>,
>"" <>
>Date: 03/14/2016 12:07 PM
>Subject: RE: [cti] RE: Versioning Background Docs
>
>________________________________
>
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>Inactive hide details for "Taylor, Marlon" ---03/14/2016 11:42:28 AM---Hi
>All, Jeff and I spoke offline and we are in agreement"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
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
