The extension process also solves the problems we have been talking about in TAXII (slack and email) of how do clients and servers know what content they are sending back and forth.
As Jason points out, this was discussed at the F2F. While the F2F did not have the whole TC there, there was unanimity on this point.
Bret
From: <> on behalf of Jason Keirstead <>
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 11:52:50 AM
To: Piazza, Rich
Cc: ; Mark Davidson
Subject: [EXT] Re: [cti] Agenda for Today's Working Call - 3/6/2018
Hi Rich - my main issue with this is there are things in your list - most notably malware and i18n, but you could really name anything - that while "text complete", are actually far from complete as we don't have anyone
who has proven that they work. This was discussed in detail at the F2F and everyone agreed that we really need working code for some of this stuff before we put it in the spec, to avoid making mistakes again.
This is precisely why we're proposing this extension process, so that folks can actually use some of these objects in the wild, via STIX, to prove them out.
-
Jason Keirstead
STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
www.ibm.com/security
"Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who hustle." - Unknown
From: "Piazza, Rich" <>
To: Mark Davidson <>, "" <>
Date: 03/07/2018 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: [cti] Agenda for Today's Working Call - 3/6/2018
Sent by: <>
Work was started on STIX 2.1 at the end of 2016, long before STIX 2.0 was released as a CS. This represents a significant amount of work, as Trey pointed out. There is much “Text Complete” work to show from this period, for instance:
Location
Malware
Note
Opinion
internationalization
This work was done under the informal TC process that was used to produce STIX 2.0. I think it is highly disruptive to introduce a new process in the middle of creating a new CS.
Therefore, my suggestion is that we declare STIX 2.1 to be “done”, and start the process for it to be released as the 2.1 CS. No additions will be allowed, and incomplete work will be dropped from 2.1.
We can then start the development of STIX 2.2 using the new fully-defined process discussed at the F2F. This also obviates the need for version numbers other than 2.1, since the only reason for various CSDs will be editorial in
nature. STIX 2.0 was accepted as a CS in July of 2017. Given our experiences as editors, and the process itself, STIX 2.1 probably wouldn’t be available as a CS until early summer, which is almost a year later.
I know some will dismiss this suggestion out of hand because it doesn’t include their pet new feature. However, there is good work which could be released to the community sooner if we take this route.
Rich P.
From: <> on behalf of Mark Davidson <>
Date: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 4:25 PM
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: [cti] Agenda for Today's Working Call - 3/6/2018
Here are the notes from today’s call.
The call began by articulating and re-affirming goals for STIX 2.1:
STIX 2.1 will be a strong technical specification that contributes to improving the defensive posture of organizations and institutions that support our societies by:
1. Promoting interoperability along key features, such as internationalization, malware, CoA, etc.
2. Permitting rapid feature iteration, for instance by creating an extension process, so that we can adapt to the evolving threat landscape
3. Including necessary backward breaking changes
4. Enabling broad marketplace adoption
5. Minimizing backward breaking changes for new work, through meeting the TC-approved “definition of done”
We also identified, for the purposes of the call, some terms to use when describing the status of issues:
TODO – The TC generally believes the feature is valuable, but has not started work
In Progress – The TC is under active deliberation to define a feature
Text Complete – The TC agrees on the text for a feature, and is ready to begin validating it through software implementations
In Test – The TC is in the process of validating that the feature works in software
Done – The feature is complete
After some deliberation, the perspective on the call identified that the critical question facing the TC is:
How do we enable rapid implementation of features that are already text complete without committing ourselves to untested text?
This is the question that, if left unanswered, will stall development of the STIX/TAXII 2.1 specifications indefinitely. Call participants were able to brainstorm some proposals, along with the common objections that have been
raised. Most notably, I believe we need to find an answer to the critical question and move forward with specification development, even if the answer has known flaws. As a group, we must find a way to move forward.
The answers brainstormed on the call (and shortly after in slack), along with their known objections, are:
Use version number on individual STIX objects, i.e., stix2.1-csd01
This potentially introduces an explosion of version numbers, resulting in interoperability issues
Use version numbers in the MIME type, i.e., application/stix+json; version=2.1-csd01
Multiple objections have been raised in various conversations, including slack, email, and GitHub
Do not make any special distinction for individual drafts
Objections relate to non-interoperability across draft versions
Create an extension mechanism and use that
Objections largely center around wanting to make sure key capabilities are in STIX 2.1
Create a new STIX 2.0 CSD-03 that includes the changes in spec necessary for extensions going forward. This CSD would then be used as the basis for all 2.1 objects to be added using extensions in a 2.1CSD01
The CTI TC’s must deliberate and select an answer to the critical question, and must proceed in unison once an answer is selected. Please debate the value of the various solutions, and continue to propose new ones.
Thank you.
-Mark
From: <> on behalf of Mark Davidson <>
Date: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 12:08 PM
To: "" <>
Subject: [cti] Agenda for Today's Working Call - 3/6/2018
All,
The past week has generated a lot of discussion and varying perspectives on how best to proceed with development of STIX/TAXII 2.1. While there is general agreement on the goals for STIX/TAXII 2.1, the implementation of these goals
has uncovered some vigorously debated tradeoffs that warrant further discussion.
On today’s working call we will:
Articulate and re-affirm the goals for STIX/TAXII 2.1
Clearly identify the tradeoffs identified through goal implementation and discuss them constructively
Consider a proposed solution for moving forward
Arrive at a concrete proposal that we can use for the duration of STIX/TAXII 2.1 development
Thank you.
Mark Davidson |Engineering
NC4 Soltra
1225 S. Clark Street, Suite 1103
Arlington, VA 22202
www.soltra.com
Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information which is privileged, confidential, proprietary, or exempt from disclosure under applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, distributing, copying, or in any way using this message. If you have received this communication
in error, please notify the sender and destroy and delete any copies you may have received.
