cti-stix — archive

Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Top Level Relationship Object

From: Patrick Maroney <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 23:30:00 -0000

Sorry for the spam to those on the STIX TC SC, this was directed to the wrong list. This may require a formal motion if we do not have consensus on the proposal below. Patrick Maroney President Integrated Networking Technologies, Inc. Desk: (856)983-0001 Cell: (609)841-5104 Email: [email protected] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: " Patrick Maroney " < [email protected] > Date: Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:21 PM -0700 Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Top Level Relationship Object To: "Jordan, Bret" < [email protected] > , "[email protected]" < [email protected] > Bret, I appreciate and support the desire to move forward, however I need to push back on this. The Relationships Model is a critical gap that requires, in my view, substantive discourse and conceptual modeling. I suggest to the CTI TC that: (1) We should be driving towards completion of the Conceptual Models expressed in: (1.1) UML (1.2) Some form of diagrammatic representation (form TBD). (1.3) Narrative Specifications in OASIS Standards document format. (2) Progress forward should modify and enhance these Conceptual Models and supportive documents. Patrick Maroney President Integrated Networking Technologies, Inc. Desk: (856)983-0001 Cell: (609)841-5104 Email: [email protected] _____________________________ From: Jordan, Bret < [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 6:17 PM Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Top Level Relationship Object To: < [email protected] > Lets try and finish this up tomorrow, Friday. I would like to see us start work on the Sighting Object the week after BH/DC. Outstanding Items: 1) How do we handle an unknown start / end time? Do we just leave it blank or do we actually put in "unknown" or a zeroed out date/time? 2) Are these values good for the Confidence Vocab? 3) What should the Type Vocab be, is this really needed? 4) How do we handle a more elaborate object marking? Do we add a Marking_Detail as an object like I said earlier? 5) Do we really need multiple targets? Just trying to make sure John's question gets enough focus. Thanks, Bret Bret Jordan CISSP Director of Security Architecture and Standards Office of the CTO Blue Coat Systems PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050 "Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg."