< Return to Ballot details

Vote Details

Ballot: CTI Common Proposal
Mitre Corporation
I agree w/ Mark Davidson's comments.

In particular, regarding #6, I think there's some latitude to consider how external specifications will reference CybOX and whether we can't have a better division than we have now. Some of those changes may open us to a simpler approach that doesn't require the separate CTI Common layer, so I don't think we should just press forward with what we have without thinking about that more.

I also strongly agree with Mark's points #1, #3, and #5 (users = users of STIX as well as other specifications referencing STIX/CybOX).

I'm working on a proposal for this and hope to have it available by 18 March. For the record, it DOES maintain a separation of STIX and CybOX.