Are you talking about a 2.1 bundle with
2.0 objects inside it? Yes, that would not work with this approach. - Jason Keirstead Lead Architect - IBM.Security
www.ibm.com/security "Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those
who hustle." - Unknown From:
drew.varner@ninefx.com To:
Jason Keirstead <
Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com> Cc:
cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org,
Bret Jordan <
bret_jordan@symantec.com> Date:
09/21/2018 12:37 PM Subject:
Re: [cti-stix]
Re: [EXT] Re: Bundle add Spec_version Sent by:
<
cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> Wouldn t this create ambiguity for 2.0 objects, where
the absence of version indicates 2.0? How would you determine if an object
is 2.0 or inherits from the bundle? On Sep 21, 2018, at 11:32 AM, Jason Keirstead <
Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com >
wrote: I would like to expand on this idea
a little bit, because I think there is a wider opportunity here to improve
something we did in CSD01. - This property on a bundle, previously indicated the version of the bundle
as well as all of the objects inside it. - The reason we removed this property from the bundle, was because we added
spec_version to each SDO/SRO, and made it a mandatory property - However, this makes it ambiguous as to what the version is, of the bundle
object itself - hence this discussion What if we revisit this change we made - and do this instead - We keep spec_version on the bundle as the previous definition - it defines
the version of the bundle itself, as well as objects within - We make spec_version an *optional* field on every SDO/SRO. If it is *not*
present, then the SDO/SRO inherits the value from it's bundle. - Jason Keirstead Lead Architect - IBM.Security
www.ibm.com/security "Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those
who hustle." - Unknown __________________ Your faith in spec reading is admirable :-) Allan Thomson. CTO, lookingglass cyber solutions.
Www.lookingglasscyber.com .
This electronic message transmission contains information from LookingGlass
Cyber Solutions, Inc. which may be attorney-client privileged, proprietary
and/or confidential. The information in this message is intended only for
use by the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe that you
have received this message in error, please contact the sender, delete
this message, and be aware that any review, use, disclosure, copying or
distribution of the contents contained within is strictly prohibited. From: Bret Jordan <
Bret_Jordan@symantec.com > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 9:12:52 AM To: Allan Thomson Cc:
cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: Bundle add Spec_version We could do that or just be super clear in the description, something with
a MUST statement so that it is flagged when people parse and extract things
from the document. Bret Sent from my Commodore 64 PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050 On Sep 18, 2018, at 6:27 PM, Allan Thomson <
athomson@lookingglasscyber.com >
wrote: Suggest to make it clear that is not the contained object versions then
we should call the property something else. Ideas: - bundle_spec_version - bundle_spec - bundle_wrapper_spec Allan Thomson, CTO, Lookingglass
Cyber Solutions This electronic message transmission contains information from LookingGlass
Cyber Solutions, Inc. which may be attorney-client privileged, proprietary
and/or confidential. The information in this message is intended only for
use by the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe
that you have received this message in error, please contact the sender,
delete this message, and be aware that any review, use, disclosure, copying
or distribution of the contents contained within is strictly prohibited. From:
cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org <
cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org >
on behalf of Bret Jordan <
Bret_Jordan@symantec.com > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 11:41 AM To:
cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [cti-stix] Bundle add Spec_version All, I would like to start a thread here to discuss adding back the spec_version
property to the bundle in STIX. A little bit of history: 1) We had spec_version on the Bundle in 2.0. However, we had problems
with it, as it was unclear if it meant the spec version of the objects
in the bundle or the bundle wrapper itself. 2) Based on this, in 2.1 we added spec_version to every object and removed
it from the bundle. I am thinking that we may need to add it back to the bundle with a clear
definition that it is the spec version of the bundle wrapper itself. Thoughts? Bret