Suggested change to Part 1, section 4.1.1 Marking Definitions / Properties

["Piazza, Rich" <rpiazza@mitre.org>]

In Part 1, section 4.1.1 Marking Definitions / Properties the following property is defined:

 

definition_type (required)

open-vocab

The definition_type property identifies the type of Marking Definition. The value of the definition_type property SHOULD be one of the types defined in the subsections below: statement or tlp (see sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.4)

 

The use of SHOULD in the second sentence, implies that other definition_types values are possible.  This will allow for custom marking definitions, which was intentional.

 

However, all other custom facilities (custom properties, objects, extensions) have normative text that indicates that any names used SHOULD be prefixed with a “x-” (or “x_“).

 

To make things more consistent, I suggest that we add this normative text (or something similar):

 

                Any other value implies a custom marking definition type, and as such SHOULD be prefixed with an “x-“.

 

One caveat:  definition_type is defined to be an open-vocab.  In other uses of open-vocabs we allow any value other than the suggested ones – but we don’t have any normative text about how to name these literals.  Does this imply that we don’t want to make the above change?