Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Update to TLP #2074

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Oct 3, 2022
Merged

Update to TLP #2074

merged 6 commits into from
Oct 3, 2022

Conversation

kgeller
Copy link
Contributor

@kgeller kgeller commented Sep 30, 2022

Continuation of #2034

Addresses #2073

@kgeller kgeller self-assigned this Sep 30, 2022
@kgeller kgeller marked this pull request as ready for review September 30, 2022 16:55
@kgeller kgeller requested a review from a team as a code owner September 30, 2022 16:55
@kgeller kgeller requested a review from peasead September 30, 2022 16:55
djptek
djptek approved these changes Oct 3, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@djptek djptek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@vpiserchia
Copy link

Dear all, I see discrepancies between every other ECS fields related to versioning information (e.g. http.version, agent.version, etc). All of them are of keyword type while this one is a float. Provided that I do no see a use case for this to be a number (ordering/sorting) I would recomment to keep the same coherence for these fields:

  • threat.threat.indicator.marking.tlp.version
  • threat.indicator.marking.tlp.version

@kgeller
Copy link
Contributor Author

kgeller commented Oct 3, 2022

Dear all, I see discrepancies between every other ECS fields related to versioning information (e.g. http.version, agent.version, etc). All of them are of keyword type while this one is a float. Provided that I do no see a use case for this to be a number (ordering/sorting) I would recomment to keep the same coherence for these fields:

@vpiserchia great catch, I didn't notice that discrepancy. I have updated the new version fields here to keyword for parity.

@kgeller kgeller merged commit be6b90c into elastic:main Oct 3, 2022
@kgeller kgeller deleted the tlp-updates branch October 3, 2022 20:13
@kgeller kgeller mentioned this pull request Oct 3, 2022
Merged
kgeller added a commit to kgeller/ecs that referenced this pull request Oct 3, 2022
@kgeller
Update to TLP (elastic#2074)
7f43beb 
# Conflicts:
#	experimental/generated/csv/fields.csv
#	generated/csv/fields.csv
kgeller added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 3, 2022
@kgeller
Update to TLP (#2074) (#2077)
32a6336
@kgeller kgeller mentioned this pull request Feb 2, 2023
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@djptek djptek djptek approved these changes

@peasead peasead Awaiting requested review from peasead

Assignees

@kgeller kgeller

Labels
8.6.0
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@kgeller @vpiserchia @djptek