Consolidation Efforts Tracking

[mikeradka]

A key point of discussion in the 10/04/2023 System Activity Workstream Sync was consolidation. As OCSF grows, so does its complexity. For instance, consumers would like to avoid having profile bloat - as the viewpoint is that this makes OCSF adoption difficult for consumers and mappers.

I'm adding this issue to capture several key topics the team raised concerns on:

1. Should we have a regular cadence (monthly?) for looking at OCSF holistically in terms of how attributes/objects/profiles/classes can be consolidated so as to maintain OCSF simplicity?
2. Should we lay down some concrete rules for Profile creation? For instance - If there is simply a need for a single object, is a profile really necessary? (metaschema opportunity?)
3. Extensions - We've noticed many new classes spurring up due to individual organizations' needs. a process that worked well in the past was to have individual orgs create their own classes in an extension when needed, and if once that class is refined and the rest of the community see a need for it - then a proposal to have the class added to OCSF Core.
4. It looks like the Person profile adds a bunch of attributes globally to the user object. To make life easier for adopters, could this be satisfied by simply adding those attributes as optional to the user object?
5. The Firewall profile - is there room to consolidate it with the Security Control profile? It looks like the only key difference between the two is the firewall_rule attribute. Both profiles have disposition and disposition_id, and a case was made that a Firewall is a Security Control.
6. Along with 4, there was some discussion around whether Network Proxy could also be consolidated into Security Controls
7. Date/Time Profile - so important, should this profile need to be specified?
8. Possibility for a stricter PR Checklist
9. Container Profile - can the attributes from this simply be added as optional attributes to the Process object?

I imagine that each of these could be tracked as separate issues - but let's at least have them all captured here for now so we can discuss and spin up related issues/pr's wherever necessary

@jp-harvey and @zschmerber hopefully i captured everything here. If you two would like to add any color to this, please feel free to clarify on any of these or capture anything else I may have missed from Wednesday 10/4/2023's sync.

[mikeradka]

Added some extra notes (5,6,7,8) per System Activity Sync on 10/11/2023

[query-jeremy]

1. A periodic compression would be healthy, but it also implies breaking changes. Changes that can't be managed with @deprecated should be avoided. And in follow up, if @deprecated elements don't already have an expiration date, we should provide one. I motion we purge @deprecated elements at the next major semver bump and not before.
2. Yes! We could also consider making all relevant profile attributes optional all of the time, or perhaps extending that by making only making required profile attributes required when the profile is enabled. There are currently four required attributes in profiles.
3. This sounds good.
4. I'm in favor of merging those attributes into user. The person profile originally applied to user and one or two events, but now it's just user.
5. No opinion.
6. No opinion.
7. No opinion.
8. Yes!

[mikeradka]

I will give more insight as this progresses, but here is the quick and dirty of what I've captured so far:

• For 1 Cadence for the maintenance sync - I am still open to ideas, but will make a decision on this by EOD tomorrow (10/18/2023). I was thinking every 3 or 4 weeks, to keep the meetings light.

• For 2 - consensus is yes. Flow chart creation was discussed along with linking/adding to the profiles section of faq

• For 3, sounds like consensus was yes, we should follow the process for extensions and class creation.

• For 4, I believe today's consensus was in favor of merging the Person attributes into the user object, though we should check with the @mtharp0

• For 5 - I am not certain we reached a resolution, might need more feedback.

• For 6, I think Network Proxy profile was justified, but I could be wrong there. Might need more feedback.

• For 7 (date/time), it sounds like consensus is it should stay as is.

• For 8, this can be a great point of emphasis for the new Consolidation/Mantainers meeting cadence.

• Added 9 (container profile attributes -> process object) which came up in the 10/17/2023 OCSF Consortium meeting. @floydtree did you mention that container might have applications beyond process?

[mikeradka]

Antiquated issue. These items have been discussed an addressed accordingly. Closing this issue.