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.

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

Post 1.0 - WD02 Comment - Regex target #38

Open
sparrell opened this issue Jan 30, 2018 · 5 comments
Open

Post 1.0 - WD02 Comment - Regex target #38

sparrell opened this issue Jan 30, 2018 · 5 comments
Labels
future This will be considered in a future version

Comments

@sparrell
Copy link
Contributor

Jason Webb made the comment to table 2-2 "I would suggest adding a new target type to this list.
I would like to be able to base my target on regular expression matching of packet content.
For example, I may want to define a target based on whether or not a packet contains a specific sequence of bytes.". This issue requires discussion as several alternatives on how to solve were suggested. Used cases are sought.

@sparrell
Copy link
Contributor Author

sparrell commented Jul 5, 2018

Deferred to post 1.0 or until a use case appears

@sparrell sparrell changed the title WD02 Comment - Regex target Post 1.0 - WD02 Comment - Regex target Jul 5, 2018
@romanojd romanojd added the future This will be considered in a future version label Oct 15, 2018
@jmbrule
Copy link
Contributor

jmbrule commented Jan 3, 2019

The need for 'regex' targets is going to apply to a subset of actuators. The ability to import targets is documented in the current specification, therefore agree with the comment to defer until use cases are identified

@jmbrule
Copy link
Contributor

jmbrule commented Feb 27, 2020

This issue is over a year old. Given that we have a means to extend the target space in the profiles and to date, no additional comments, use case nor actuator profile has been provided, suggest we close this issue

@dlemire60
Copy link
Contributor

Given that (i) the original source of the comment is no longer a TC member and (ii) no use cases have been presented, I recommend closing this issue. The subject can be revisited in the future if a use case is presented.

@dlemire60
Copy link
Contributor

Discussed at triage session, leave for future and await a use case and a proposal.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
future This will be considered in a future version
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants