openc2 — archive

Re: [openc2] RE: [EXT] [openc2] Modifier to become Action-Option

From: Joe Brule <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 18:09:00 -0000

All, I am in the process of gleaning the relevant items from this thread (and other sources such as slack) so that we could move this to a wiki. A wiki will provide a more concise and organized collection of the points and counterpoints. I think if we work on our OASIS wiki, we will be able to provide the points, counterpoints and discussion in a single and easy to navigate location. This can provide background and context to the discussion(s). Does it make sense to use the email distro as a means for communicating resolutions and other media (such as wiki) for deliberation? I am concerned that some of the context and discussion will get obfuscated in a sea of email…. https://wiki.oasis-open.org/openc2/EncodingStyle From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Waltermire, David A. (Fed) Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 2:20 PM To: Allan Thomson <[email protected]>; Bret Jordan <[email protected]>; [email protected]; TC OpenC2 <[email protected]> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [openc2] RE: [EXT] [openc2] Modifier to become Action-Option Multiple targets could be represented like this: { "action": { "type": "copy", "options": {} }, "targets": [ { "type" : "file", "specifiers: {}, "options": {} }, { “type” : “registry-key”, “specifiers: {}, “options: {} } ] } A single target could be represented as a single array member. Thoughts? Regards, Dave From: Allan Thomson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 1:51 PM To: Waltermire, David A. (Fed) <[email protected]>; Bret Jordan <[email protected]>; [email protected]; TC OpenC2 <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [openc2] RE: [EXT] [openc2] Modifier to become Action-Option The only issue I see with Option 1 is that if there is an intention to have multiple targets in the same target specification. For example with Option 1 the following would * not * be possible as specifiers and options are now ambiguous. Option 1: { "action": { "type": "copy", "options": {} }, "target": { "type" : "file", "specifiers: {}, "options": {} “type” : “registry-key”, “specifiers: {}, “options: {} } } Whereas with Option 2 (the specifiers and options are not ambiguous): Option 2: { "action": { "copy": { "options": {} } }, "target": { "file": { "specifiers: {}, "options": {} }, “registry-key” : { "specifiers: {}, "options": {} } } } So if having multiple targets in the same target specification is not needed then it’s a non-issue. If multiple targets are needed then this problem needs a solution. Therefore I have a slight preference for Option 2 (*if* multiple targets are needed). Allan p.s. Option 1 could be solved by naming the specifiers and options as “file-specifier” and “file-options” but that is not ideal. From: < [email protected] > on behalf of "Waltermire, David A. (Fed)" < [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 9:39 AM To: Bret Jordan < [email protected] >, " [email protected] " < [email protected] >, TC OpenC2 < [email protected] > Subject: [openc2] RE: [EXT] [openc2] Modifier to become Action-Option I have a preference for option 1 largely because I believe the BNF can be made more simple around this syntax, without having to account for specific target types. Enforcement of specific target types and type specific options can then be handled post-parse by business logic enforcing content co-constraints. Regards, Dave From: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected] ] On Behalf Of Bret Jordan Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 11:17 AM To: [email protected] ; TC OpenC2 < [email protected] > Subject: [openc2] Re: [EXT] [openc2] Modifier to become Action-Option Yes, I fully support this change. In addition to this we have design issue with our current structure. Today we have: { "action": { "type": "copy", "options": {} }, "target": { "file": { "specifiers: {}, "options": {} } } } This represents a bad form with its design. The action property is flat while the target is nested. We should do one or the other. There are two real options here, and they both have the same semantic meaning. Personally, flat designs are generally more preferable, and they represent a good design principle (flatter is better than nested). The advantage of nested is you can quickly make parsing decisions about which struct to unmarshal content in to based on the key name. So I can go either way, but we should pick one style of encoding. Option 1: { "action": { "type": "copy", "options": {} }, "target": { "type" : "file", "specifiers: {}, "options": {} } } Option 2: { "action": { "copy": { "options": {} } }, "target": { "file": { "specifiers: {}, "options": {} } } } Bret From: [email protected] < [email protected] > on behalf of [email protected] < [email protected] > Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 3:18:37 PM To: TC OpenC2 Subject: [EXT] [openc2] Modifier to become Action-Option An issue was discussed and resolved at the last Language Subcommittee that the Modifier field move under Action and be action-option. Since this is a relatively major change, it is being communicated to the the TC mailing list. A wiki page was created for this issue at https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/4ZB73huEVk4m4G4BVhqWi7fMUB0u1Oc_vLzhEIH4Qr8=?d=lgF3yCMdJLpr2hoS6bxs4YL-vUnzWGbkKQEzB2bgA_H5mbF_oFvunb9iw0XNrDodmItASA4L3KRPul2fmVkB74LP2gBcgZRiTA4mpq_PESfctOcLwm9LDtlauaaYY8oL3vVIq3fkEqEs9IYXuI3tFnAmdE2M8qSUgk5a3ZY6P4zZJej-ZSP8VamePJyrY9yJkSEuJTr63eRaeHzIBx0R4N1GA8Zy9QY2RVWdF2bXWm3QmJz94qdql27QkX09F7SPJn-2l61rhwh8RdeWnYTR5iZx41tT1YrBTn7kimp3M41Jl7vRgzyGo3hqh45e9QwK36pQTtzJY91NCdq7FP-zA0gUPhKwcRmJdjoWXk8ojA8lGd0iM3dMW1N0xOPUvADrwK6dz7f7rW4SZSu6gKs9DBKMCAyvr4kpjShh0BEi-OB7almext8XHOClGRH7-_aFMqz7rslqaa_zi9YJxajl56ANUeRrw1cO0ipBXM4kYOk%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.oasis-open.org%2Fopenc2%2FModifierOnAction but the content will be repeated here: "The language specification previously defined the openc2 command as having 4 components: + action (mandatory) + target (mandatory) + actuator (optional) + modifier (optional) At the 29-Aug-2017 Language Subcommittee meeting, Allan Thomson of Looking Glass raised the issue of whether 'modifier' belonged as a peer to action or as part of action. Targets have target-specifiers and target-options and the issue was whether modifier was really an action-option. Bret Jordan of Symantec supported this view with the argument it would be easier for vendors to adopt openc2 since it would be easier to understand. The issue was raised by DuncanSparrell (speaking as sFractal Consulting and software developer of ocas, not as co-chair) that this was a significant change to something that has been stable for 2 years and that any software already written would have to be changed. It was observed that the purpose of the SC was to get input and that changes were to be expected. The argument that it would increase vendor adoption was significant as everyone agreed that increased vendor adoption would be beneficial. Consensus was reached that modifier would move to action-option. The changes to the Language Specification that result from this will be reviewed at the next meeting." Duncan Sparrell sFractal Consulting LLC iPhone, iTypo, iApologize --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/Km-wOTq-1nndQkBooSUDh3NIDtFY7FPX5qgQs5818tI=?d=lgF3yCMdJLpr2hoS6bxs4YL-vUnzWGbkKQEzB2bgA_H5mbF_oFvunb9iw0XNrDodmItASA4L3KRPul2fmVkB74LP2gBcgZRiTA4mpq_PESfctOcLwm9LDtlauaaYY8oL3vVIq3fkEqEs9IYXuI3tFnAmdE2M8qSUgk5a3ZY6P4zZJej-ZSP8VamePJyrY9yJkSEuJTr63eRaeHzIBx0R4N1GA8Zy9QY2RVWdF2bXWm3QmJz94qdql27QkX09F7SPJn-2l61rhwh8RdeWnYTR5iZx41tT1YrBTn7kimp3M41Jl7vRgzyGo3hqh45e9QwK36pQTtzJY91NCdq7FP-zA0gUPhKwcRmJdjoWXk8ojA8lGd0iM3dMW1N0xOPUvADrwK6dz7f7rW4SZSu6gKs9DBKMCAyvr4kpjShh0BEi-OB7almext8XHOClGRH7-_aFMqz7rslqaa_zi9YJxajl56ANUeRrw1cO0ipBXM4kYOk%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oasis-open.org%2Fapps%2Forg%2Fworkgroup%2Fportal%2Fmy_workgroups.php