RE: What shall we name our specification(s)?

[Philip Hallam-Baker <pbaker@verisign.com>]

Security Assertion Service Specification (SASS) ?????
Authorization Assertion Service Specification (A2S2) ????

	Phill


> -----Original Message-----
> From: christopher ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 5:13 PM
> To: security-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: What shall we name our specification(s)?
> 
> 
> Yes, but I thought that since we're designing
> more than just a ML (e.g. we're attributing it with
> protocol semantics) that the "ML" in the name was 
> too constraining.
> 
> SAXP or Security Assertion eXchange Protocol would be
> closer to what we're about, IMHO.
> 
> Of course, this name omits the "Service" aspect
> which is, I believe, one of the compelling aspects
> of all of this work. Defining an interoperable service
> "interface" (the Auth/Az Request/Response pairs) is as important
> an aspect as the exchange of the assertions themselves
> as it will allow for the development/migration of applications
> that can delegate these (Auth o/e) functions to a blankety-blank 
> compliant service provider.
> 
> Maybe Security Assertion Service and eXchange Protocol
> (SASXP)?
> 
> My $0.02,
> 
> Chris
> 
> George_Robert_Blakley_III@tivoli.com wrote:
> > 
> > I second Marc's nomination here (in fact I think I 
> suggested the same
> > thing).  I think "SAML" is the most descriptive
> > and accurately-scoped alternative.
> > 
> > --bob
> > 
> > Bob Blakley
> > Chief Scientist, Security
> > Tivoli Systems, Inc.
> > 
> > "Chanliau, Marc" <MChanliau@netegrity.com> on 01/29/2001 03:56:11 PM
> > 
> > To:   "Orchard, David" <dorchard@jamcracker.com>, Philip 
> Hallam-Baker
> >       <pbaker@verisign.com>, "'Eve Maler'" <eve.maler@east.sun.com>,
> >       security-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> > cc:
> > Subject:  RE: What shall we name our specification(s)?
> > 
> > How  about SAML (Security Assertion Markup  Language).
> > Marc Chanliau
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Orchard, David  [mailto:dorchard@jamcracker.com]
> > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 4:44  PM
> > To: Philip Hallam-Baker; 'Eve Maler';
> > security-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: What shall we  name our specification(s)?
> > 
> > I  know you are keen on getting the focus on authorization, 
> but I'm not too
> > interested in dropping authentication and keeping 
> authorization.  Either
> > authent +author, or neither would be my interest.
> > 
> > Dave
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Philip Hallam-Baker  [mailto:pbaker@verisign.com]
> > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 12:23  PM
> > To: 'Eve Maler';  security-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: What shall we  name our specification(s)?
> > 
> > My  objection to A2ML was that specifying Authentication in 
> the name to me
> > implies that we would be supporting authenticated key 
> exchange, which is
> > something I don't want to do in an OASIS group, that is 
> something I would
> > prefer to do in a closed group of cryptographers and 
> network security
> > protocol engineers.
> > 
> > On  the other hand "Authorization Assertion Markup 
> Language" would have the
> > initials A2ML, thus indicating the warm touchy feely get 
> together vibes
> > people want, being clearly a descendent of S2ML and Auth 
> XML (whose current
> > voting success I take note of).
> > 
> > Does anyone else have definite feelings towards the  
> binding of the second
> > A?
> > 
> >          Phill
>