Open sparrell opened 7 years ago
IMO it's not a contradiction. OpenC2 is, ultimately, an interface specification: what does element A sends to element B and what does it mean. The functions that elements A and B perform that give them cause to support an OpenC2 interface is outside the scope of the spec, but recognizing that they exist doesn't seem like a contradiction.
I'll put something here for orchestrator so we have a starting point to poke holes in:
In IT and security there are many types of orchestrators. In the context of OpenC2 the word orchestrator is defined more narrowly to mean a sense-making and decision-making engine that can determine when and how to produce OpenC2 commands and chain commands together into automated and semi-automated courses of action.
I am aware that this contradicts the following sentence from the abstract:
I think of an orchestrator as a component that will use OpenC2 but also have other capabilities, so I think it is OK that part of my definition describes capabilities outside the scope of OpenC2.