Re: [security-services] Additional suggestions for naming changes

["Randall Rick" <randall_rick@bah.com>]

hi Eve,

If this is still open for discussion, I would like to add $0.02 ...


"Eve L. Maler" wrote:
> 
> Okay, here's my (biased?) assessment what I've heard so far.
> 
> Reference -> Ref             yes
> Condition -> (null)          yes
> Confirmation -> Conf         maybe
> Attribute -> Attr            maybe

Attribute -> Attr
[rr] Yes: I have seen this abbreviation in the past.  It seems
straightforward.

> NameQualifier -> Qualifier   maybe
> Assertion -> Assn            no?

Assertion -> Assn
[rr] No:  It could be confused with "association", as someone noted
earlier.


> Service -> Svc               no
[rr] Yes?: I have seen this abbreviation in the past.  I missed the
explanation of why someone thought this abbreviation is a bad idea?

> Qualifier -> Qual            no

> Statement -> Stmt            no
[rr] Yes?: I have also seen this abbreviation used this way in the
past.  I think this got an "F" on your original list, but I do not know
why.


> Reauthenticate -> Reauthn    no
> 
> If people can weigh in so that we get a clearer idea of the leanings, it
> sounds like Scott can implement, in proposed form, the ones with the
> most support.
> 
> To continue my weigh-in here, I don't think NameQualifier -> Qualifier
> is a good idea because the parent element is not Name, but rather BaseID.
> 
>         Eve
> --
> Eve Maler                                        +1 781 442 3190
> Sun Microsystems                            cell +1 781 354 9441
> Web Products, Technologies, and Standards    eve.maler @ sun.com


 ~ Rick Randall
   Booz Allen Hamilton