cti-stix — archive

[Eric Burger]

I think STIX messages are bounded. As in not streaming. Meaning we can use compression at the transport level if the number of bits gets to be too much. Sent from my mobile device. Thanks be to LEMONADE: http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade S2ERC: http://s2erc.georgetown.edu/ GCSC: http://gcsc.georgetown.edu/ Me: http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~ eburger On Jul 29, 2015 11:36 PM, "Jordan, Bret" <bret.jordan@bluecoat.com> wrote: 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 <terry.macdonald@threatloop.com> 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" <Eric.Burger@georgetown.edu> 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 <bret.jordan@BLUECOAT.COM> 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