Ballot Details: Approve OpenC2 HTTPS Transfer Specification, v1.0, WD04 as CSD and for public review (CLOSED)

Ballot Question Do you approve the Specification for Transfer of OpenC2 Messages via HTTPS v1.0 Working Draft 05 and all associated artifacts as Committee Specification Draft 04, and its release for public review?
Ballot Description WD 05 was discussed at the 20 March 2019 OpenC2 TC meeting and posted to OASIS on 27 March 2019. The co-chairs of the Implementation Considerations Subcommittee have determined that general consensus has been reached on the resolution of all comments to the CSD 03 / PRD 01 received during the first public review and presented it to the Technical Committee’s co-chairs.

In accordance with the OpenC2 Technical Committee’s Standing Rule 5, the co-chairs submit this ballot to the Technical Committee to authorize the release of the working draft and all associated artifacts for a second public review.

TC members are strongly encouraged to review the document during the ballot period and include their feedback as ballot comments. This will permit corrections to be made prior to publication for public review.

Per the guidance adopted at the October 2018 TC meeting, approval of this ballot includes approval for the Co-Chairs and Editors to work with OASIS staff make any changes necessary to prepare this document for Public Review.

Public document link:

The Markdown (MD) version of the specification will be designated as authoritative.

This ballot requires a majority vote of the TC's voting members.
Ballot Options
VOTING CLOSED: Thursday, 4 April 2019 @ 2:00 pm EDT
Yes 24 96
No 1 4
Open Date Thursday, 28 March 2019 @ 7:00 pm EDT
Close Date Thursday, 4 April 2019 @ 2:00 pm EDT
Ballot Type Official, as defined by organization policies and procedures

Referenced Items

Name Type Date

  • Folder: Working Drafts
  • Group: OASIS Open Command and Control (OpenC2) TC
  • State: Draft
  • 466K

Working draft 5 of the "Specification for Transfer of OpenC2 Messages Over HTTPS", incorporating changes in response to comments from public review #1 and to maintain consistency with the other OpenC2 specifications. This submission has MD and HTML versions; the MD version is authoritative. This draft will be submitted for TC review.

OpenC2 Over HTTPS Specification, WD05 Document 2019-03-28

Voting Statistics

Number of votes cast (excluding abstentions) 25
Eligible members who have voted 25 of 34 73.529%
Eligible members who have not voted 9 of 34 26.471%

Voting Summary by Option

Options with highest number of votes are bold
Option # Votes % of Total
Yes 24 96%
No 1 4%

Voting Details

Voter Name Company Vote * Time (UTC) Comments
* Barry, Michelle AT&T Yes 2019-04-02 16:07:00
* Brule, Joe National Security Agency Yes 2019-03-29 14:24:00
* Considine, Toby University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Yes 2019-03-29 15:51:00
* Everett, Alex University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Yes 2019-04-03 00:30:00
* Girard, David Trend Micro Yes 2019-03-31 18:55:00
* Gurney, John-Mark New Context Services, Inc. Yes 2019-04-02 21:36:00
* Hamilton, David AT&T Yes 2019-04-03 11:41:00
* Hunt, Christian New Context Services, Inc. Yes 2019-04-02 18:09:00
* Kemp, David National Security Agency Yes 2019-03-29 15:06:00
* Lemire, David G2 Yes 2019-04-01 17:12:00
* Maroney, Patrick DarkLight, Inc. Yes 2019-03-29 17:41:00
* Martinez, Danny G2 Yes 2019-04-02 18:39:00
* Mathews, Lisa National Security Agency Yes 2019-04-03 18:47:00
* Meck, James FireEye, Inc. Yes 2019-04-03 18:42:00
* Riedel, Daniel New Context Services, Inc. Yes 2019-03-29 21:02:00
* Riley, Shawn DarkLight, Inc. Yes 2019-04-01 20:08:00
* Romano, Jason National Security Agency Yes 2019-04-01 13:07:00
* Skeen, Duane Northrop Grumman Yes 2019-03-30 20:38:00
* Sparrell, Duncan sFractal Consulting LLC Yes 2019-03-29 17:57:00
* Stair, Michael AT&T Yes 2019-04-02 16:39:00
* Storms, Andrew New Context Services, Inc. Yes 2019-04-02 23:36:00
* Stueve, Gerald Fornetix Yes 2019-04-03 01:22:00 1
* Trost, Bill AT&T Yes 2019-04-03 13:17:00
* Varner, Drew NineFX, Inc. Yes 2019-04-03 01:41:00
* Berliner, Brian Symantec Corp. No 2019-04-03 23:03:00 1
* Jordan, Bret Symantec Corp. --
* Joyce, Ryan DarkLight, Inc. --
* Kakumaru, Takahiro NEC Corporation --
* May, Andrew Viasat --
* Ortiz, Efrain Symantec Corp. --
* Patrick, Paul FireEye, Inc. --
* Ricard, Chris Financial Services Information Sharing and... --
* Webb, Jason LookingGlass --
* Yu, Sounil Bank of America --

Voter Comments

Submitter Vote Comment
Stueve, Gerald
Yes Fix spelling of company name, should be Fornetix
Berliner, Brian
Symantec Corp.
No This spec currently requires that ALL OpenC2 Commands MUST include an "X-Request-ID" header with every command. However, this header is only used as a tracing header, and since there is no actual way that the header value can be used with any other OpenC2 command, I cannot in good conscience force the Consumer that my company supports to REQUIRE an API to include the "X-Request-ID" header. As such, our Consumers will not be spec compliant, since they will be written to work work with non-compliant Producers that do not actually supply this tracing header with every request. When our Consumer receives a request that DOES NOT include the "X-Request-ID" header, it will generate a UUID and return the generated UUID in the response header as required by the spec. Further, when our Consumer receives a request that DOES include the "X-Request-ID" header, it will use it as specified by this spec. As such, our Consumer will work correctly with compliant Producers (which apparently must always specify this tracing header). I feel it is unfortunate that we are requiring a tracing header to be always supplied even when the spec does not have a use for it (beyond tracing, which is by design an optional capability in operational environments).