Re: [cti] Verisoning Discussion @ CTI Working Discussion

I concur 

Bret 

Sent from my Commodore 64

On Mar 29, 2016, at 5:14 AM, Jason Keirstead <> wrote:

I also back this decision. I am more worried about the consequences of missing something and doing it wrong, than about ramifications of not including it.

-

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 

<graycol.gif>Mark Davidson ---03/29/2016 08:16:51 AM---I’d like to second this so that we can have a clear CTI TC-wide view of opinions on this matter. I c

From: Mark Davidson <>

To: "Foley, Alexander - GIS" <>, "Wunder, John A." <>, ""
 <>

Date: 03/29/2016 08:16 AM

Subject: Re: [cti] Verisoning Discussion @ CTI Working Discussion

Sent by: <>

I’d like to second this so that we can have a clear CTI TC-wide view of opinions on this matter. I care more about making a decision than I do the specific outcome.

Thank you.

-Mark

From: <> on behalf
 of "Foley, Alexander - GIS" <>

Date: Monday, March 28, 2016 at 5:56 PM

To: "Wunder, John A." <>, ""
 <>

Subject: RE: [cti] Verisoning Discussion @ CTI Working Discussion

I motion that we do not consider including versioning as part of STIX 2.0, and instead wait for 2.1+ to implement it.

I’m not trying to say that we shouldn’t prepare for it, I just don’t believe we’re going to solve this issue in the next three months given the many other issues we need to figure out.

Thanks,

Alex Foley

From:  [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Wunder, John A.

Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 1:58 PM

To: 

Subject: Re: [cti] Verisoning Discussion @ CTI Working Discussion

It seems like another important topic is is versioning MVP
(should we include it in STIX 2.0, or wait until 2.1+)?

I know that the working group leaders believe that it is, but it seems like we should talk through that as a group before digging into these deeper topics just in case the community as a whole feels differently.

From: <> on behalf of Marlon Taylor <>

Date: Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:38 AM

To: "" <>

Subject: [cti] Verisoning Discussion @ CTI Working Discussion

Hi All,

During the CTI call tomorrow we will discuss versioning, more specifically implicit vs explicit relationships. During this discussion it will be beneficial to identify:

· What’s the difference?

o With Implicit Relationships - as a version is updated, the relationships of the former as passed along to the latter.

o With Explicit Relationships - as a version is updated, it is new with no prior relationships.

· Is there any use-case/rationale for either?

o Arguably one can state they both can result in a version update where the relationships of the former exist in the latter.

· Should they be mutually exclusive?

Please join the call tomorrow to learn about and contribute to this topic.

Feel free to use this thread as a notebook for your views/questions/ideas for tomorrow’s discussion.

Marlon Taylor

Technology Services Section (TSS)

National Cybersecurity & Communications Integration Center (NCCIC)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at
http://www.bankofamerica.com/emaildisclaimer. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message.