I apologize it has taken me a while to submit this. I think I understand what the architecture diagram is driving to. I wonder if we could take a different viewpoint, or at least a singular one. We have the communication fabric at the center, and a variety of notional boxes connected by that fabric. These boxes seem to be labeled from an operational perspective or a security program perspective or from a product class perspective.
Would it make sense to look at this from the security program perspective and start hanging the major program areas we believe exist for a given security program? Because I am with CIS, I'll mention some of the more prominent program areas the CIS Controls talks about: Asset Management, Configuration Management, Vulnerability Management, Log Management, Incident Management, Systems Development Management, Training and Awareness, Penetration Testing, Data Management, and so on.
Then, for each of those program areas we could create a program-specific view of the architecture. For example, Configuration Management will certainly leverage some common components from Asset Management (a CMDB, for example), but also have other components involved for policy definition/content repositories, collectors, evaluators, and the like.
For reference, the CIS Controls alludes to or explicitly mentions around 40 distinct tools, which is a lot to try to condense into a single diagram.
Taking this perspective may additionally serve to be an indicator of how well OCA is covering the various aspects of a generic security program.
Thoughts?