| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Comment Resolution Account for STIX 2.0 CSDPR01 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Prepared: | 20 April 2017 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Comment # | Public review | Date provided | Link to email | Commenter | Category | Comment provided / Issue raised | TC decision on resolution | Comments / Changes | |||||||||||||||||
5 | 1 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 23-03-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201703/msg00001.html | John-Mark Gurney | Substantive | Add an optional "hash" property to the external-reference type to capture the hash of the referenced content. | ACCEPT | Moved hashes-type to part 1. Renamed to hashes. Moved hash-algo-ov to part 1, renamed to hash-algorithm-ov. Added field called "hashes" to external-reference type, of type hashes. | |||||||||||||||||
6 | 2 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 23-03-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201703/msg00002.html | John-Mark Gurney | Examples | Change examples that currently use md5 to use some other hash (given md5 is known to be insecure) | ACCEPT | Left 3 examples of MD5 (1 in part 3, 2 in part 5). Examples were updated to SHA-256 and ssdeep | |||||||||||||||||
7 | 3 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 23-03-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201703/msg00003.html | Bret Jordan | Editorial | Update the participants list | TODO | Participants list was updated across Part 1-5 | |||||||||||||||||
8 | 4 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 27-03-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201703/msg00004.html | John Wunder | Editorial | Part 1: Update section 5.1.2 to correct the data markings description to indicate that they can't have relationships. | ACCEPT | Updated section 4.1.2 (incorrect number in comment) to indicate that data-marking is not a STIX object and can't have relationships. Removed listing of relationships from the table. | |||||||||||||||||
9 | 5 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 27-03-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201703/msg00004.html | John Wunder | Examples | Part 2: Attack pattern example: external_reference should have an external_id property | ACCEPT | Fixed | |||||||||||||||||
10 | 6 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 27-03-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201703/msg00004.html | John Wunder | Examples | Part 2: The create time of the malware in the coa example is after the create time of the relationship that refers to it | ACCEPT | changed relationship created property | |||||||||||||||||
11 | 7 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 27-03-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201703/msg00004.html | John Wunder | Examples | Part 2: The COA Example has a typo. The Malware SDO at the bottom of the example has a property called `relationship_type` which should actually be `name` | ACCEPT | changed relationship_type to name | |||||||||||||||||
12 | 8 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 27-03-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201703/msg00004.html | John Wunder | Examples | Part 2: 2016-01-201T17:00:00Z in the report example has a 3 digit day | ACCEPT | added milliseconds, and fixed date | |||||||||||||||||
13 | 9 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 27-03-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201703/msg00004.html | John Wunder | Examples | Part 2: The threat-actor example is pretty skimpy and should be expanded | ACCEPT | added several properties | |||||||||||||||||
14 | 10 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 27-03-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201703/msg00004.html | John Wunder | Substantive | Part 4: home_dir in unix-account-ext isn't a ref to a directory object, but just a string | REJECT (TODO: Confirm with community) | Matches how this is generally captured by Unix systems | |||||||||||||||||
15 | 11 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 27-03-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201703/msg00004.html | John Wunder | Substantive | Part 4: the x509 extension is named inconsistently: most other extensions are "foo_ext", this one is 'x509-v3-extensions-type' | REJECT w/ Clarification | Added a clarification that it describes x509 extensions, not a STIX Extension for x.509. | |||||||||||||||||
16 | 12 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 27-03-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201703/msg00004.html | John Wunder | Editorial | Part 4: In the x509-certificate properties table, there is no entry for extension, even though it has one. | REJECT | Given resolution of #11, no change necessary | |||||||||||||||||
17 | 13 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 27-03-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201703/msg00004.html | John Wunder | Examples | Part 4: Timestamp in pe-binary-file needs a trailing Z | ACCEPT | added Z | |||||||||||||||||
18 | 14 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 27-03-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201703/msg00004.html | John Wunder | Examples | Part 4: Windows-service-ext example should have service_name, not display_name | ACCEPT | Added service name | |||||||||||||||||
19 | 15 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 27-03-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201703/msg00004.html | John Wunder | Examples | Part 4: In the x509 example, validity_not_before and validity_not_after are after subject – but that is not the order in the table. No big deal – but examples usually follow the order in the table. | ACCEPT | re-order | |||||||||||||||||
20 | 16 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 28-03-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201703/msg00005.html | Chris Lenk | Examples | Part 2: In the Indicator example: pattern should say 'file:hashes.MD5' (not 'file.hashes...') | ACCEPT | replaced period with colon | |||||||||||||||||
21 | 17 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 28-03-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201703/msg00005.html | Chris Lenk | Examples | Part 2: In the Report example with bundle: indicator pattern should say 'file:hashes.MD5' (not 'file.hashes...') | ACCEPT | replaced period with colon | |||||||||||||||||
22 | 18 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 28-03-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201703/msg00005.html | Chris Lenk | Examples | Part 4: In the “Basic Stream Socket” socket-ext example: is_listening should be a boolean, not a string. | ACCEPT | changed to boolean | |||||||||||||||||
23 | 19 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 28-03-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201703/msg00006.html | John-Mark Gurney | Substantive | I propose removing the description property from Part 3, section 3.1 Common Properties, as it does not add to the "facts" of what a cyber observable object is. I am not sure why this is present. As most Cyber Observables will be machine generated, or will be encapsulated in another context which can provide the needed context, this seems not useful. | ACCEPT | removed property from section 3.1 in part 3 and from summary row of tables in part 4. | |||||||||||||||||
24 | 20 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 28-03-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201703/msg00007.html | Terrance Mckay | Substantive | Upon review of the STIX 2.0 standard I have found what appears to be a missing relationship between the Indicator and Vulnerability objects. It would seem prudent that an "Indicator" object would be able to "indicate" a "Vulnerability". However the draft standard does not list this as a defined type of relationship. I believe this is an important relationship for the standard, as being able to publish proactive indicators that indicate a vulnerability would be very beneficial to detect and remediate a vulnerability before it is exploited by an adversary. | REJECT | Defer to 2.1 | |||||||||||||||||
25 | 21 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 28-03-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201703/msg00008.html | Edilson Arenas | Substantive | This (comment 20) appears to be a reasonable suggestion, however, a close analysis of the definition of the SDOs shows that the Indicator, as the fundamental element of intelligence, focuses more on providing information to objectively describe or indicate a specific “Intrusion Set”, not a Vulnerability. | N/A | N/A | |||||||||||||||||
26 | 22 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00000.html | Greg Back | Examples | I noticed that many of the common required fields (including id, created, modified) are omitted from the examples in section 2.4.3 of part 2 (https://docs.oasis-open.org/cti/stix/v2.0/csprd01/part2-stix-objects/stix-v2.0-csprd01-part2-stix-objects.html#_Toc476230936) and replaced with ellipses. This is inconsistent with the examples for the other SDOs. | ACCEPT | Added required fields | |||||||||||||||||
27 | 23 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Parts 1-5 fail to distinguishe between normative and non-normative text, don't use notes for non-normative materials. https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1520 | ACCEPT | Added text to intro saying that everything was normative except for overview, examples, etc. | |||||||||||||||||
28 | 24 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Parts 6 and 7 play no role in conformance clauses at all. Are they entirely optional? Non-Normative? https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1519 | ACCEPT | Added optional features for Section 7. Added note to Section 6 saying it's referenced from part 2. | |||||||||||||||||
29 | 25 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 - conformance clauses are vague. Saying "all requirements" is a good way to lead to onflicting implementations. Say what they are in detail. https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1518 | ACCEPT | We rephrased this to identify that the relevant requirements are from the property table for that type. | |||||||||||||||||
30 | 26 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | 4.1 marking definitions - Speculation on the future is best a note, if not omitted alltogether (with respect to FIRST IEP) https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1517 | REJECT | No change, we felt this was important enough to include. | |||||||||||||||||
31 | 27 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | 4 data markings - We reference trust groups that have rules about which markings oferride other markings. If we talk about them, why not give references to them? Why leave the reader hanging? https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1516 | REJECT | No change, we don't want to reference the specific groups publicly. | |||||||||||||||||
32 | 28 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1, 3.3-3.4.2 is deeply confusing. Lots of text examples. https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1515 | REJECT w/ CAVEATS | We rejected most of the rewrite (the TC spent a lot of time on that section and feels it's good) but did incorporate parts of it. The rewrite also seemed to join together IDs, references, and versioning as concepts which isn't really accurate. Specific changes included adding some introductory text and changing a MAY to a non-normative can. | |||||||||||||||||
33 | 29 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 section 3.1 common properties, labels - Where is the suggested vocabulary? Cross-refs please. https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1514 | ACCEPT | Re-worded this section to make it clearer that the vocabulary was referenced from the usage of the STIX object | |||||||||||||||||
34 | 30 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 section 3.1 - What does it does it mean for an anonymous object to be 'revoked' and who does it? Without a created_by_ref, is it meaninful? https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1513 | ACCEPT | Added text to clarify that the object creator is still the object creator even if they don't fill in the created_by_ref field. | |||||||||||||||||
35 | 31 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 section 3.1 common properties, modified - Avoid incomplete statements. https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1512 | ACCEPT | change "update" to "set" | |||||||||||||||||
36 | 32 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 section 3.1 common properties created_by_ref - The interaction between an object without a created_by_ref property and versioning as well as revocation seems under defined. https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1511 | ACCEPT | Added text to clarify that the object creator is still the object creator even if they don't fill in the created_by_ref field. | |||||||||||||||||
37 | 33 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 section 3.1 common properties id - Don't presume perfect operation and define error condition for cases where objects of different types do in fact share the same ID. https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1510 | ACCEPT | changed "not possible" to "invalid" | |||||||||||||||||
38 | 34 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 section 3.1 common properties type - circular definition https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1509 | ACCEPT | Corrected to indicate that it's the name of a type, not the type itself. | |||||||||||||||||
39 | 35 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 all examples - Amend the Examples heading with what it purports to be an example of. https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1508 | REJECT | We didn't feel this made sense. | |||||||||||||||||
40 | 36 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 section 2.10 conflicts with 3.4.2 versioning timestamps https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1507 | ACCEPT | Added text to clarify that this simply meant the specific time the tool considers "creation" | |||||||||||||||||
41 | 37 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 section 2.8 Cross references to the suggested vocabularies and meaningful titles for those cross-references. BTW, names are defined elsewhere and should remain elsewhere. https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1506 | ACCEPT | ||||||||||||||||||
42 | 38 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 section 2.7 list definition is confusing. It implies the list type defines a sort order, and if that isn't true, it needs to be dropped. Does it allow for empty lists? https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1505 | REJECT | Couldn't come up with any changes that didn't just make it more confusing. | |||||||||||||||||
43 | 39 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 section 2.5 integer representation - state the allowable number range rather than implying it. https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1504 | ACCEPT | ||||||||||||||||||
44 | 40 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 section 2.4 identifier - distributed definitions for identifier are confusing. Suggest recasting identifier such that all parts of the identifier are fully defined here and ONLY here. https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1503 | ACCEPT w/ CAVEATS | Tried to clarify this with an additional example and better formatting. | |||||||||||||||||
45 | 41 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 section 2.3 floats - move RC7159 to normative references https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1502 | ACCEPT | ||||||||||||||||||
46 | 42 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 section 2.3 float - since you can only represent a subpart of IEEE 754, why not simply start with the floating point definition of JSON? Don't worry about subsetting IEEE 754. https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1501 | REJECT | Couldn't identify a change that wouldn't just be more confusing. | |||||||||||||||||
47 | 43 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 - there are six examples under section 2.2.3, which isn't overly difficult. Use a consistent number of examples unless the material is clearly more compliated than most https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1500 | REJECT | ||||||||||||||||||
48 | 44 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 section 2.2.1, properties order of listing - the prose and the table are in opposite ordering for "description, url, and external_id", Use the table order and revise the prose. https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1499 | ACCEPT | ||||||||||||||||||
49 | 45 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 section 2.1 boolean - The normative MUST statement is unnecessary and confusing https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1498 | REJECT | Felt it is already clear, better to be precise | |||||||||||||||||
50 | 46 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | All parts - font colors and styles - Reconsider the use of color for interpretation and the impact of accessibility requirements on governments and corporations. https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1497 | ACCEPT | Accept, will change one of the colors to blue | |||||||||||||||||
51 | 47 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 - section 1.5.1 naming conventions - Includes some text that isn't actually naming conventions, but rather requirements for matching and interpretation of property tables. Split and move the second paragraph. https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1496 | ACCEPT | Accept, moved to a new "Naming Requirements" section | |||||||||||||||||
52 | 48 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 section 1.4.6 Vocabularies - text is too vague, please include references for defined vocabularies. https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1495 | ACCEPT | Added new text with references and an example | |||||||||||||||||
53 | 49 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 section 1.4.3 STIX relationships - STIX relationship objects are defined, and then extended. Shorten and revise. https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1494 | ACCEPT | Added text to reference where embedded relationships are defined. | |||||||||||||||||
54 | 50 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 use of graph/node/edge - The only mention of it is in part 1.4.1 If the graph model isn't important enough to mention elsewhere, suggest tossing it as unnecessary https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1493 | REJECT | We felt this was important to explain how the STIX data model works. | |||||||||||||||||
55 | 51 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 abbreviation list is incomplete. If STIX content and STIX object qualify for inclusion in the abbreviation list, then why is STIX relationship excluded. Add STIX relationships to abbreviations. https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1492 | ACCEPT | Added definition for STIX Relationship and Embedded Relationship. Modified definition for SDO and SRO to indicate node/edge in a graph | |||||||||||||||||
56 | 52 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 section 1.1 terminology has a list of abbreviations that follows RFC2119. Suggest listing abreviations in a separate section. https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1491 | ACCEPT | Moved glossary to an appendix across all 5 parts | |||||||||||||||||
57 | 53 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 - there is no basis given for distinguishing between normative and non-normative text. https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1490 | ACCEPT | moved normative statements on serialization to conformance (in part 1). Added text to terminology section in all 5 parts to indicate which parts of the document are normative/non-normative (i.e. overview, examples, and text marked non-normative is not normative). | |||||||||||||||||
58 | 54 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 RFC references - RFC2119 has no DOI. https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1489 | ACCEPT | ||||||||||||||||||
59 | 55 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 - I would drop RFC0020 as gratuitous and not necessary. https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1488 | ACCEPT | ||||||||||||||||||
60 | 56 | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 06-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00001.html | Patrick Durusau | Editorial | Part 1 - Is there some reason to use a dated reference to Unicode? It would exclude the use of any later editions. https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1487 | REJECT | Intentionally want to use some specific dated version, otherwise it could change from under us. | |||||||||||||||||
61 | Post-Comment Period (TC Member Comments) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
62 | N/A | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 12-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00004.html | John-Mark Gurney | Examples | One of the patterning examples is incorrect | ACCEPT | ||||||||||||||||||
63 | N/A | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 17-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00005.html | Bret Jordan | Examples | In the versioning section, we use the term "title". However, after this section was written, we changed all of the SDOs to use "name". So we should fix these examples. | ACCEPT | ||||||||||||||||||
64 | N/A | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 18-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00006.html | John-Mark Gurney | Editorial | Update hashes text to include restrictions on keys | ACCEPT | ||||||||||||||||||
65 | N/A | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 18-04-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00006.html | John-Mark Gurney | Substantive | Change patterning to use single quotes as an escape for keys rather than double quotes | ACCEPT | ||||||||||||||||||
66 | N/A | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 04-19-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00007.html | John-Mark Gurney | Editorial | Use correct names of Unicode code points | ACCEPT | ||||||||||||||||||
67 | N/A | stix2.0-csdpr01 | 04-20-2017 | https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cti-comment/201704/msg00008.html | Jason Keirstead | Editorial | Add references to relevant RFCs for URL and Domain Name | ACCEPT | ||||||||||||||||||
68 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
70 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
71 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
72 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
73 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
74 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
76 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
77 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
78 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
79 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
80 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
81 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
82 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
83 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
84 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
85 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
86 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
87 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
88 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
89 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
90 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
91 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
92 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
93 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
94 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
95 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
96 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
97 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
98 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
99 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
100 |