Title: RE: New Name !
Agree. Also...the ML in many cases is applied to vertical oriented schemas/dtds for a specific industry. Not that I have anything better to offer, but I tend to agree that simply using ML for the sake of conforming may not be a valid argument.
My 0.02.
--Brian
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Brian Eisenberg | Standards & Technology Liaison
600 108th Avenue NE | Suite 900 | Bellevue WA 98004
T 425.467.2641 | F 425.637.1192 |
w w w . d a t a c h a n n e l . c o m
-----Original Message-----
From: Orchard, David [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 1:54 PM
To:
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:]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 1:46 PM
> To:
> 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:]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 1:33 PM
> > To: 'Krishna Sankar'; Eve L. Maler;
> >
> > 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:]
> > > 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"
> > >
> >
>
