misp-rfc

misp-rfc copied to clipboard

Several of the attribute attributes refer to their context as "event", maybe C&P error?

3

e.g. https://github.com/MISP/misp-rfc/blob/0d37c82b42e7ede979811a89e791a1628e75b4d2/misp-core-format/raw.md.txt#L476

acruise

- https://github.com/MISP/misp-book/issues/163#issuecomment-729053315

adulau

README.md and raw.md.txt still have draft version 07 and `Expires: February 9, 2019 ` where the current draft is 08. Expectation: Both show the 08 version.

bernhardreiter

Add a section about current implementation (following BP from RFC 7942)

adulau

`type` codes appear to be duplicated for Attribute and ShadowAttribute; should probably refer to a single appendix table

1

https://github.com/MISP/misp-rfc/blob/0d37c82b42e7ede979811a89e791a1628e75b4d2/misp-core-format/raw.md.txt#L884

acruise

Fields containing only numbers should be JSON integers

2

To allow proper marshaling of the proposed misp-core-format JSON protocol it would be essential to have the attributes only containing numbers to be actual JSON Integers: **Exemplary for Events:** -...

rhaist

Sample UUID and example orgs should be added

1

Sample UUID and example orgs should be added

adulau

Timestamps should all be in the same format

2

The current RFC for misp-core-format has two different timstamp formatings: 1. unix timestamp format as string value (REF: #3) 2. date as YYYY-MM-DD To conform with standard API marshaling and...

rhaist

warning-list format Internet-Draft

adulau