security-services message

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

From: Carlisle Adams <carlisle.adams@entrust.com>
To: "Chanliau, Marc" <MChanliau@netegrity.com>,"'George_Robert_Blakley_III@tivoli.com'" <George_Robert_Blakley_III@tivoli.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:08:43 -0500

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

Hi Bob,

----------
From: George_Robert_Blakley_III@tivoli.com[SMTP:George_Robert_Blakley_III@tivoli.com]
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 5:02 PM
To:     Chanliau, Marc
Cc:     Orchard, David; Philip Hallam-Baker; 'Eve Maler'; security-services@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:        RE: What shall we name our specification(s)?

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.

...except that there were people on the conference call who felt that this group was trying to accomplish more than the creation of a "markup language" (e.g., protocols, bindings, etc.). I tend to agree with this opinion.

Carlisle.

P.S., Note that "seconding nominations", etc., probably does not achieve the desired effect on this mailing list, since an Evite vote has been established for this purpose...