[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: New Name !
Another idea is that should we should not use the nomenclature of "ML" when much - such as the bindings and protocol selection - are not MLs per se. The Schema fits in and is a part of the package/protocol/service, but there is more than schema. Also, our use of XYZML constrains us in that we tend to want only 2 letters in front of the ML, AuthXML not withstanding. We could talk about the use of "XYZ protocol" or "XYZ service". Now, I know that (X)AAP or AAS aren't that great, but I wanted to spark some out-of-box thinking. Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Krishna Sankar [mailto:ksankar@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 1:46 PM > To: security-services@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: New Name ! > > > Hal, > > The new name looks great ;-). Like many, I myself am a > non-pc person. > > I *do* support a sensible name which reflects the > deliverables of the group > (I assume it is the syntax, semantics, protocols and bindings > for exchanging > security info), WITHOUT compromising the flexibility towards > future work > beyond the current body of deliverables. We should assume > that there will be > more work done for version 2.0, version 6.0 (;-)) and beyond. > > Having said this, I would shut up and go to sleep. > > cheers > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hal Lockhart [mailto:hal.lockhart@entegrity.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 1:33 PM > > To: 'Krishna Sankar'; Eve L. Maler; > > security-services@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: RE: New Name ! > > > > > > 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" > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC