[IntelMQ-dev] IEP04: The choice of the UUID-format

[Sebastian Wagner]

On 9/9/21 9:40 AM, Pavel Kácha wrote:
>> Putting six different timestamps in the metadata while not
>> providing that data in the payload itself seems a bit awkward to me.
>    Definitely. To make myself clearer - I didn't mean to put all the
> timestamps into metadata, just the one, which would make best sense for the
> tools, which do not need to look into payload, and which would be clearly
> defined. My examples are just (some of the) possibilities of how to define
> it.

We're on the same page, my main point is, that most of the possible
timestamps don't (yet?) have their own fields in the payload and need to
be saved in the extra namespace. If we'd use one of them for the
timestamp in the metadata, we should first properly define them in the
payload.

Sebastian

-- 
// Sebastian Wagner <wagner at cert.at> - T: +43 676 898 298 7201
// CERT Austria - https://www.cert.at/
// Eine Initiative der nic.at GmbH - https://www.nic.at/
// Firmenbuchnummer 172568b, LG Salzburg


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.cert.at/pipermail/intelmq-dev/attachments/20210910/ad0d7502/attachment.sig>