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:]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 4:20 PM
> To: Eve L. Maler;
> 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"
>
