Actually, XAAP would be pronounced "zap", which is pretty cool
if it isn't already taken.
Cheers,
Chris
"Orchard, David" wrote:
>
> 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"
> > > >
> > >
> >
