RE: [EXT] [cti] Request for clarification on the effects of missing sponsorships

Hi Richard,

 

> You are correct â what is at risk with respect to Course of Action is the STIX 2.1 changes to the object. If, 

> due to lack of sponsorship, we are required to remove the 2.1 additions/changes to Course of Action, the

> specification will revert to the Course of Action as specified in STIX 2.0.

 

> Does that answer your question?

 

Yes, this solves my doubts.

Thanks for the quick feedback.

 

Best regards

 

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Marco 

Siemens AG
Corporate Technology
Research in Digitalization and Automation
Corporate CERT Services
CT RDA ITS CER-DE
Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
81739 Muenchen, Germany 
mailto:
www.siemens.com/ingenuityforlife

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft: Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Jim Hagemann Snabe; Managing Board: Joe Kaeser, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer; Roland Busch, Lisa Davis, Klaus Helmrich, Janina Kugel, Cedrik Neike, Michael Sen, Ralf P. Thomas; Registered offices: Berlin and Munich, Germany; Commercial registries: Berlin Charlottenburg, HRB 12300, Munich, HRB 6684; WEEE-Reg.-No. DE 23691322

 

 

From: Struse, Richard J. <> 
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 1:40 PM
To: Caselli, Marco (CT RDA CST SEL-DE) <>; 
Subject: Re: [EXT] [cti] Request for clarification on the effects of missing sponsorships

 

Marco â

 

You are correct â what is at risk with respect to Course of Action is the STIX 2.1 changes to the object. If, due to lack of sponsorship, we are required to remove the 2.1 additions/changes to Course of Action, the specification will revert to the Course of Action as specified in STIX 2.0.

 

Does that answer your question?

 

Rich

 

From: <> on behalf of "Caselli, Marco" <>
Date: Friday, January 17, 2020 at 7:33 AM
To: "" <>
Subject: [EXT] [cti] Request for clarification on the effects of missing sponsorships

 

Dear all,

 

I am writing this email to ask for some clarifications about the effects of a missing sponsorship for some STIX 2.1 objects. 

From our last call, I understood that âInfrastructureâ and âCourse of Actionâ are at risk of being removed from the standard. In this regard, I was wondering about the fact that, while âinfrastructureâ is a new object, âCourse of Actionâ was already introduced in STIX 2.0. If I do not see any technical issue in removing âInfrastructureâ (besides the effort of going through the whole standard and ensuring integrity), would not the removal of âCourse of Actionâ impact backward compatibility? As an alternative, could the missing sponsorship mean going back to the STIX 2.0 representation of âCourse of Actionâ?

 

Best regards

 

               Marco

Siemens AG
Corporate Technology
Research in Digitalization and Automation
Corporate CERT Services
CT RDA ITS CER-DE
Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
81739 Muenchen, Germany 
mailto:
www.siemens.com/ingenuityforlife

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft: Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Jim Hagemann Snabe; Managing Board: Joe Kaeser, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer; Roland Busch, Lisa Davis, Klaus Helmrich, Janina Kugel, Cedrik Neike, Michael Sen, Ralf P. Thomas; Registered offices: Berlin and Munich, Germany; Commercial registries: Berlin Charlottenburg, HRB 12300, Munich, HRB 6684; WEEE-Reg.-No. DE 23691322

 

Attachment:
smime.p7s

Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature