cti-taxii — archive

FW: [cti-taxii] TAXII Materials Submission - TAXII Pre-Draft spec

From: Eric Burger <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:01:00 -0000

Here are some updates and discussion points to the transport specification language. Sorry I cannot be there in Florida! Passing the text to some folks who really know security, one thing they asked was why we did not just chose to use Suite B (RFC 6460). What I proposed is almost Suite B, so there would not be much of a significant change to what we’ve got proposed now. My concern with Suite B is there is a lot of FUD that the Cyber Act is really just an excuse for USG fishing. Mandating a NSA security suite may have bad optics. What do you think? On Jan 7, 2016, at 10:59 PM, Mark Davidson < [email protected] > wrote: I had meant for this to go to the CTI list, and I got bit by autocomplete. -Mark From: < [email protected] > on behalf of Mark Davidson < [email protected] > Date: Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 11:28 PM To: [email protected] < [email protected] > Subject: [cti-taxii] TAXII Materials Submission - TAXII Pre-Draft spec All, Please find attached the TAXII 2.0 pre-draft specification. As noted on the TAXII SC list and within the document itself, this document is intended to be a discussion platform and help drive consensus. The quality of the document is a bit uneven – we’d like to kindly request that readers attempt to get the “big picture” first and comment on specific wordings/phrasings second. Notably, if you think “Channels and Collections” are the wrong way to go, that would be a great thing to raise at the F2F. Thank you and we look forward to seeing you at the F2F! Mark and Bret Attachment: smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature