Skip to content

New JSON files for schema and examples#86

Closed
sei-vsarvepalli wants to merge 2 commits intoCERTCC:mainfrom
sei-vsarvepalli:issue65-data-schema
Closed

New JSON files for schema and examples#86
sei-vsarvepalli wants to merge 2 commits intoCERTCC:mainfrom
sei-vsarvepalli:issue65-data-schema

Conversation

@sei-vsarvepalli
Copy link
Contributor

@sei-vsarvepalli sei-vsarvepalli commented Dec 6, 2020

Request review and merge of this branch for updates to the /data folder - adding JSON schemas and examples of JSON files under folders "schema" and "computed". These have been tested with JSON Schema tool for version 4.0 JSON schema.

Note to remember and fix later:
Even the latest JSON Schema (7) does not have a good way to represent Epoch in milliseconds and relating it to a timestamp. So for now, Epoch timestamp remains an integer and the date field remains a normal date-time field - potentially using ISO 8601 time format.

@j---
Copy link
Collaborator

j--- commented Dec 8, 2020

I think this closes the substantive part of #65. However, to actually fully handle #65, we'll also need to edit the .md to talk about the JSON schema (which I plan to handle).

@sei-vsarvepalli
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think this closes the substantive part of #65. However, to actually fully handle #65, we'll also need to edit the .md to talk about the JSON schema (which I plan to handle).

Hello Jono,

I have a simple README.md, it will be good to make it more exhaustive and clear about how it will be used. The schema will probably also be iterative and may require improvements. I will wait for @ahouseholder thoughts also.

Thanks
Vijay

"format": "date-time"
},
"timestamp_epoch_ms" : {
"description": "Date and time in epocj utc millisec",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"epocj" should be "epoch"

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for this catch. There is a little more consolidation of information I noticed in the Provision JSON schema. I will update all this and push a new PR soon out.

Copy link
Contributor

@ahouseholder ahouseholder left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

  • timestamp should be ISO 8601 with time zone to make it easier for receiver parsing
  • timestamp_epoch_ms appears redundant to timestamp and is easy enough to get on the receiver end once timestamp has been parsed. I'd prefer just having the one timestamp field.
  • If characters in ISO8601 are a problem for the shorthand notation (which appears to append a timestamp to an ssvc string), I'd just make it positional: e.g., YYYYmmddHHMMSS. I don't see a need for subsecond resolution, and human-readability has value.

@sei-vsarvepalli
Copy link
Contributor Author

  • timestamp should be ISO 8601 with time zone to make it easier for receiver parsing
  • timestamp_epoch_ms appears redundant to timestamp and is easy enough to get on the receiver end once timestamp has been parsed. I'd prefer just having the one timestamp field.
  • If characters in ISO8601 are a problem for the shorthand notation (which appears to append a timestamp to an ssvc string), I'd just make it positional: e.g., YYYYmmddHHMMSS. I don't see a need for subsecond resolution, and human-readability has value.

Allen,
Thanks very much for the review and comments!

One question I have is YYYYmmddHHMMSS should that be in UTC?

I have a few more changes that I will consolidate into this PR (include your changes as well) this afternoon. Appending the timestamp epoch for short form of ssVC score is mentioned in the below link. @j--- may need to update that document as well for ease of reading date-time in the shorthand score representation.

https://github.com/CERTCC/SSVC/blob/main/doc/version_1/047_treesForVulMgmt_4.md

@sei-vsarvepalli
Copy link
Contributor Author

I am going to completely close this one and start a new PR, this branch is now all confusingly messed up.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants