Given that perspective (forcing a 2.0) the I say the heck with it until we identify other breaking changes. Not enamored with the notion of forcing a 2.0 for
the sake of sequential numbers for an index when there is not really a functional impact
From: duncan sfractal.com <>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 10:08 AM
To: Brule, Joseph M <>; 'Brian Berliner' <>
Cc: openc2-lang <>
Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [openc2-lang] Fwd: mistake inside oc2ls-v1.0-cs02
It would be a material and breaking change to renumber. We might want to just add back in the ‘missing numbers’ with any new actions we were thinking of (ie the ones we took out) and then it would still be material but would be non-breaking
(ie 1.1 instead of 2.0). Even though ‘breaking’ would be ok (since so new), 2.0 so soon doesn’t have great optics. Although I suspect we might need to go there for other reasons anyway (ie I’m not confident we are perfect yet - plugfest and time will tell).
iPhone, iTypo, iApologize
Duncan Sparrell
sFractal Consulting, LLC
I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info/
From: Brule, Joseph M <>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 10:00:23 AM
To: 'Brian Berliner' <>; duncan sfractal.com <>
Cc: openc2-lang <>
Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [openc2-lang] Fwd: mistake inside oc2ls-v1.0-cs02
THAT is what the comment meant. I was not tracking.
That is something we should have taken care of. I recall that there was some churn in the action table so rather than constantly rewriting the code in OIF,
we were going to wait until it settled down and do the renumber once.
Brian is correct, we should have renumbered it, Brian is correct, it’s just an index so doesn’t really matter.
IF we are going to do this, then we should take care of it ASAP. Right now, all the cool kids are using JSON serialization, but we would want to address any
renumbering BEFORE people start implementing protobuf, cbor or whatever
From: <>
On Behalf Of Brian Berliner
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 9:50 AM
To: duncan sfractal.com <>
Cc: openc2-lang <>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [openc2-lang] Fwd: mistake inside oc2ls-v1.0-cs02
There are a lot more numbers than “21” missing in the Action table. We removed some early actions from the table before we released the final version. I also thought that it looked weird that we didn’t re-number the table to make it perfectly
sequential, but in reality they are just identifiers and it doesn’t matter what the number is... but the number assigned in the table should never change.
For all of us currently, we use JSON, so the numbers are not even used at all, so this is reserved for when we add binary encodings.
So, yes. 21 is missing (and lots of others). That is weird, but by design, and it actually doesn’t matter that they are not perfectly sequential in the table.... Except for the fact that I had to just write this exactly because they are
not perfectly sequential in the finals spec!
-Brian
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 5:49 AM duncan
sfractal.com <> wrote:
The attached email went to the public comments email. Since I am not sure everyone monitors that channel, I am forwarding to LSC to look at
iPhone, iTypo, iApologize
Duncan Sparrell
sFractal Consulting, LLC
I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at
http://vsre.info/
From:
<> on behalf of Vincent ROME <>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 6:16 AM
To:
Subject: [openc2-comment] mistake inside oc2ls-v1.0-cs02
Hello,
I'm currently reading the specification and try to make my own python implementation and I found that :
In page 29 of the oc2ls-v1.0-cs02
The number "21" is miss inside the board
--
Cheers,
-Brian
