Duncan – I’m only comparing the process in which STIX/TAXII followed for CSD process vs google doc review.
The STIx/TAXII community spent significant time on the google doc (as it was easier to revise/edit) and getting that close enough to the 95% of what a final CSD would look like.
It sounds like the OpenC2 TC want to follow a route where the CSD is much more immature and therefore will require many more ballots/edits.
I’m only one voice and observing the difference between the processes. Whether one is better than the other, time will tell.
Allan
From: <> on behalf of "" <>
Date: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 12:37 PM
To: "" <>
Subject: [openc2] OpenC2 Language Specification draft for approval
Alan,
We did review the document at the last LSC, which I realize you could not attend. I thought we did actually take alot of your comments into account and made changes.
For example you'll note that in the approval copy the entire Goals section consists of "TBS". We took out the existing text since you had issues with it so we kicked that text into future versions. We did similar with your comments on serialization (ie we
took out the text and replaced with TBS) and did the same with the text on actuator type.
The substantive thing being agreed to is the list of actions. Do you have issues with the action list?
And let me point out again - the text being proposed for the CSD is only 13 pages. The google doc is 150 pages. We are only including the parts we think we've have
reached agreement on. We are eating the whale in smaller bites.
Duncan Sparrell
sFractal Consulting LLC
iPhone, iTypo, iApologize
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [openc2] Groups - OpenC2 Language Specification uploaded
From: Allan Thomson <>
Date: Wed, October 11, 2017 3:13 pm
To: Duncan Sparrell <>, ""
<>
Duncan – thanks for the heads up.
At this point, I’ve reviewed a lot of the google document and I’m concerned that we would push for a ballot on such raw text at this point.
The specification is not at the level it needs to be for a CSD ballot, in my opinion.
I suggest we consider resolving a lot more of the content in question/comments in the google document before spending time on a CSD. I have not seen resolution
of many of the issues to my comments alone far less anyone elses comments. So therefore in all honesty I couldn’t say I would vote yes for this document as a CSD 1.0.
Regards
Allan
From:
<> on behalf of Duncan Sparrell <>
Date: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 11:45 AM
To: "" <>
Subject: [openc2] Groups - OpenC2 Language Specification uploaded
Submitter's message
The OpenC2 Language Subcommittee has been reviewing the OpenC2 Language Specification, which is currently a 150-page google doc at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l7rIZl_I_zZb1FQOMYZkfUI04O7sNasZ-ozUvMn5SMU/. This gdoc contains both agreed-to text, and text still being debated.
The attached zip file contains 3 documents which contain the same 13-page content in 3 file formats (pdf, word, html). It only contains text that I believe the
Language Subcommittee has reached consensus (but not necessarily unanimous agreement) on.
I intend to make a motion at the Oct-18 TC meeting to approve this text as a Committee Specification Draft (CSD). My intent is to document what we have reached agreement on, and to draw out any issues we don’t realize we have. Note a CSD is a draft - we will
be adding to this several times before we are ready for publishing as a verison 1.0.0 Specification. This document contains a lot of boilerplate and the substantive text is that it contains the list of agreed-to OpenC2 actions.
The motion will be something along the lines of:
"I move that the OASIS OpenC2 TC approve the OpenC2 Language Specification, Version 1.0.0, Working Draft revision 03 and all associated artifacts packaged together in (Link to this page) as a Committee Specification Draft and designate the PDF version of the
specification as authoritative."
-- Mr. Duncan Sparrell
Document Name:
OpenC2 Language Specification
Description
Open Command and Control (OpenC2) is a concise and extensible language to
enable the command and control of cyber defense components, subsystems
and/or systems in a manner that is agnostic of the underlying products,
technologies, transport mechanisms or other aspects of the implementation.
Download Latest Revision
Public Download Link
Submitter: Mr. Duncan Sparrell
Group: OASIS Open Command and Control (OpenC2) TC
Folder: Working Drafts
Date submitted: 2017-10-11 11:44:35
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
