RE: New Name !

[Hal Lockhart <hal.lockhart@entegrity.com>]

Are you seriously proposing SexML? ;-)

The objection to "Security Services" is that many existing and future XML
Security services fall outside of our scope. Examples include: XML
signatures, XKMS and XML encryption. It also seems odd that some argue that
"Authentication" is too broad, while endorsing "Security" which is even more
so.

I think I speak for a number of people in saying that my major concern is
that there be a "new" name, so as to indicate to the world we are engaged in
an open process that is beginning with a blank piece of paper, not
rubberstamping something one of my competitors invented. I am sorry this is
so politicized, but we are not responsible for that.

Hal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krishna Sankar [mailto:ksankar@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 4:20 PM
> To: Eve L. Maler; security-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: New Name !
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 	Here are my thoughts on the new name:
> 
> 	1.	We could add the word eXchange somewhere in the 
> name to make it more
> clear that our mission in life is exchange security info.
> 
> 	2.	Like many pointed out, Authentication could 
> imply more stuff. Generic
> Security Services will make our work extensible to other 
> required areas.
> 
> 	3.	I do not believe in restricting to auth and 
> authorization, in the
> future.
> 
> 	3.	My humble suggestion is "Security Services 
> eXchange Markup Language"
> 
> 	cheers and happy new year (It is the eve of the Chinese 
> New year here in
> Singapore)
> 
> 	Remember "Rose by any other names smells as sweet"
>