CTI STIX Subcommittee

All, I would like to propose that we format the document a bit different, and would like to hear people's feedback.. Right now we have a few different ways of documenting relationships in the TLOs (trying to test the water to see which way is best).  For example, for each TLO we have a Properties table and a Relationship table (some case we have both the source and destination relationships and in other cases we have merged them together).  Further, I have heard from some of you that you would like all of the relationships in one place. Proposal: 1) Create a new Level 1 section called Relationships  2) Move all of the relationships to this section.  The tables of relationships will NO longer be associated with each TLO. 3) For each TLO, under the properties tables will include a graphic of the relationships that are applicable to that TLO.  But for the details and descriptions, you would need to go to the relationships section. What would people like more or find more useful?   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.   Attachment: signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Personally I like having everything about an object with that object. It makes it easier for a reader to understand what objects apply to it and from it. I can see this makes it harder when generating the objects, but in my opinion we should do whatever is the easiest for the reader, as this week be read way more times than it will be written... Can we change it so that there is a level 1 relationship section showing all the relationships, but with no real details. Then we have the relationship details with each objects details. In that way of someone wants an overview is in one place, and if they are implementing an object then the required relationships detail is right there in that section - making it easier to use. Cheers Terry MacDonald On 27/06/2016 3:46 AM, "Jordan, Bret" < bret.jordan@bluecoat.com > wrote: All, I would like to propose that we format the document a bit different, and would like to hear people's feedback.. Right now we have a few different ways of documenting relationships in the TLOs (trying to test the water to see which way is best).  For example, for each TLO we have a Properties table and a Relationship table (some case we have both the source and destination relationships and in other cases we have merged them together).  Further, I have heard from some of you that you would like all of the relationships in one place. Proposal: 1) Create a new Level 1 section called Relationships  2) Move all of the relationships to this section.  The tables of relationships will NO longer be associated with each TLO. 3) For each TLO, under the properties tables will include a graphic of the relationships that are applicable to that TLO.  But for the details and descriptions, you would need to go to the relationships section. What would people like more or find more useful?   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." 

I do think having all relationships at least _ listed _ in the same location makes sense. I’m not sure they all need to be _ defined _ in the same location, however.
 
For now, I’d be happy with a location that summarizes all relationships – perhaps an appendix summary table with “from”, “to”, “relationship”, and “section ref” headers – so that as a developer,
I can see them all in one place. This doesn’t need to be developed now, but a placeholder would be good IMO.
 
Thank you.
-Mark
 

From:
<cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Terry MacDonald <terry.macdonald@cosive.com>
Date: Sunday, June 26, 2016 at 6:10 PM
To: "Jordan, Bret" <bret.jordan@bluecoat.com>
Cc: "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] relationships


 



Personally I like having everything about an object with that object. It makes it easier for a reader to understand what objects apply to it and from it.

I can see this makes it harder when generating the objects, but in my opinion we should do whatever is the easiest for the reader, as this week be read way more times than it will be written...
Can we change it so that there is a level 1 relationship section showing all the relationships, but with no real details. Then we have the relationship details with each objects details. In that way of someone wants an overview is in one place, and if they
are implementing an object then the required relationships detail is right there in that section - making it easier to use.
Cheers
Terry MacDonald

On 27/06/2016 3:46 AM, "Jordan, Bret" < bret.jordan@bluecoat.com > wrote:


All,

 


I would like to propose that we format the document a bit different, and would like to hear people's feedback..


 


Right now we have a few different ways of documenting relationships in the TLOs (trying to test the water to see which way is best).  For example, for each TLO we have a Properties table and a Relationship table (some case we have both
the source and destination relationships and in other cases we have merged them together).  Further, I have heard from some of you that you would like all of the relationships in one place.


 


Proposal:


1) Create a new Level 1 section called Relationships 


2) Move all of the relationships to this section.  The tables of relationships will NO longer be associated with each TLO.


3) For each TLO, under the properties tables will include a graphic of the relationships that are applicable to that TLO.  But for the details and descriptions, you would need to go to the relationships section.


 


What would people like more or find more useful?  







 


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." 









 

On 27.06.2016 08:10:59, Terry MacDonald wrote: > > I can see this makes it harder when generating the objects, but in > my opinion we should do whatever is the easiest for the reader, as > this week be read way more times than it will be written... > > Can we change it so that there is a level 1 relationship section > showing all the relationships, but with no real details. Then we > have the relationship details with each objects details. In that way > of someone wants an overview is in one place, and if they are > implementing an object then the required relationships detail is > right there in that section - making it easier to use. > While this approach inevitably imposes additional work on the editors, I think that the benefit to implementors more that justifies the additional work. I would suggest that for the initial Summer release we baseline on a relationship appendix and divvy out the per-object explication for the Winter release. -- Cheers, Trey ++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++ Kingfisher Operations, sprl gpg fingerprint: 85F3 5F54 4A2A B4CD 33C4 5B9B B30D DD6E 62C8 6C1D ++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++ -- "It is always possible to aglutenate multiple separate problems into a single complex interdependent solution. In most cases this is a bad idea." --RFC 1925 Attachment: signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Thanks all for the feedback...  Based on the comments, we will leave the relationships inline with the TLOs and perhaps do some sort of summary, somewhere in the document.   I am glad to know you all find them useful where they are.  I will try and do some tweaking to the formatting to make them easier to understand.  Changes forth coming.   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.   On Jun 27, 2016, at 15:54, Trey Darley < trey@kingfisherops.com > wrote: On 27.06.2016 08:10:59, Terry MacDonald wrote: I can see this makes it harder when generating the objects, but in my opinion we should do whatever is the easiest for the reader, as this week be read way more times than it will be written... Can we change it so that there is a level 1 relationship section showing all the relationships, but with no real details. Then we have the relationship details with each objects details. In that way of someone wants an overview is in one place, and if they are implementing an object then the required relationships detail is right there in that section - making it easier to use. While this approach inevitably imposes additional work on the editors, I think that the benefit to implementors more that justifies the additional work. I would suggest that for the initial Summer release we baseline on a relationship appendix and divvy out the per-object explication for the Winter release. -- Cheers, Trey ++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++ Kingfisher Operations, sprl gpg fingerprint: 85F3 5F54 4A2A B4CD 33C4  5B9B B30D DD6E 62C8 6C1D ++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++ -- It is always possible to aglutenate multiple separate problems into a single complex interdependent solution. In most cases this is a bad idea. --RFC 1925 Attachment: signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail