I have a very strong preference for Option 1. Option 2 adds a layer of indirection for all users, even those who don’t care about precision, while Option 1 means that only those who care about precision have to deal with it.
John
On January 19, 2016 at 3:22:52 PM, Jordan, Bret () wrote:
There tends to be two options for dealing with objects that have multiple timestamps and their corresponding precision. Sean and I have been talking through the pros and cons of these. We would like to get everyone's opinion. Which do you prefer, option 1
or option 2
Option 1:
This option put the burden on the JSON serialization format to add an extra "_precision" field to each timestamp enabled field. This is a much flatter and easier to parse and process representation, but the con is it requires unique field names.
{
"type": "incident",
"initial_compromise_time" : "2015-12-07T22:00:00Z",
"initial_compromise_time_precision": "hour",
"first_data_exfiltrated_time" : "2015-12-09T05:11:00Z",
"first_data_exfiltrated_time_precision" : "minute",
"incident_opened_time" : "2016-01-15T11:19:22Z",
"incident_closed_time" : "2016-01-19T17:24:017Z"
}
Option 2:
This option will require a nested object and struct to store this data and will have an extra layer of indirection for all of those times when the timestamp is at the default precision.
{
"type": "incident",
"initial_compromise_time" : {
"timestamp": "2015-12-07T22:00:00Z",
"timestamp_precision": "hour"
},
"first_data_exfiltrated_time" : {
"timestamp": "2015-12-09T05:11:00Z",
"timestamp_precision" : "minute"
},
"incident_opened_time" : {
"timestamp": "2016-01-15T11:19:22Z"
},
"incident_closed_time" : {
"timestamp": "2016-01-19T17:24:017Z"
}
}
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."
