cti-stix — archive

Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Single Binding

From: John Wunder <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:57:00 -0000

I agree with Bret: one binding to rule them all, one binding to…bind…them. I also agree that the single binding should be JSON. I think people will have huge problems implementing a binary protocol across a variety of languages and platforms. We would have to consider language/library support, compatibility between different libraries, and all the other challenges of a binary protocol. If at some point volume surpasses what we can do in JSON that would be a good time to counter my first statement and add a binary protocol *for only those use cases* and continue to use JSON for other use cases. In other words, we might add another binding but each use case would only have a single supported binding. John From: < [email protected] > on behalf of "Jordan, Bret" Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:36 AM To: Terry MacDonald Cc: Eric Burger, " [email protected] " Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Single Binding I am not against a binary version. I do have concerns about ease of use with binary. I also have concerns with good solid support for handhelds. But that discussion aside, I think we both agree on "not XML" and "only one way to do it". Bret Sent from my Commodore 64 On Jul 29, 2015, at 11:03 PM, Terry MacDonald < [email protected] > wrote: I disagree with Brett's statement that the only binding should be JSON. I believe that the only binding should be a binary protocol of some sort. We differ in our beliefs there, but we do both believe there should only be a single binding. One way to do it. The protocol discussion and testing stages should be very interesting when we go through the various options as a community. Cheers Terry MacDonald > On 30 Jul 2015 1:38 pm, "Eric Burger" < [email protected] > wrote: >> >> Fine with me. Anyone else? >> >> The counter argument might be “Why bother with UML?” I would offer it is because UML and OWL will let us see the actual relationships. What may be cool is to compile them into JSON bindings. That’s a <hint> research project. >> >> > On Jul 24, 2015, at 3:00 PM, Jordan, Bret < [email protected] > wrote: >> > >> > On the community call there was a statement made that STIX will continue down the old path of UML and then OWL with bindings for XML and others. There needs to be a single binding, and it should be JSON. The only reason I wanted UML was to break our dependency on XML-isims to make it easier to do JSON. >> > >> > Bret >> > >> > Sent from my Commodore 64 >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >> > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: >> > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >> > >>