Hi Allan,
I might have missed some discussions, but
what are the relationships between
"11 Customizing STIX" of STIX 2.1 (custom properties,
custom objects, and custom extensions) and
this SEP proposal?
Regards,
Ryu
From: <>
On Behalf Of aa tt
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 12:28 AM
To:
Subject: [cti] Updated Extension Proposal
CTI TC -
Please find attached an updated STIX extension proposal that the mini-group worked with IBM (Jason/Emily) to incorporate an acceptable compromise to their concerns.
In summary:
1) Previously presented extension proposal is maintained and has been named âsub-component extensionâ to clarify the distinction between when it would/should be used vs the additional mechanism added for top-level extension.
2) Added the concept of Top-Level object extension to allow extension properties directly with existing STIX standard objects.
3) Clarified language/definitions around use for both aspects.
The google doc containing the specification changes are here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TkXv1btieo33BAEcVsprgbVob5qeHOHVAQU0bg9AK-c/edit#heading=h.y2hw6f789m5b
This proposal represents the agreement by all mini-group participants. We would like to encourage the TC to consider this proposal and incorporate the changes to the STIX standard.
Allan Thomson
