Security Assertion Service Specification (SASS) ?????
Authorization Assertion Service Specification (A2S2) ????
Phill
> -----Original Message-----
> From: christopher ferris [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 5:13 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: What shall we name our specification(s)?
>
>
> Yes, but I thought that since we're designing
> more than just a ML (e.g. we're attributing it with
> protocol semantics) that the "ML" in the name was
> too constraining.
>
> SAXP or Security Assertion eXchange Protocol would be
> closer to what we're about, IMHO.
>
> Of course, this name omits the "Service" aspect
> which is, I believe, one of the compelling aspects
> of all of this work. Defining an interoperable service
> "interface" (the Auth/Az Request/Response pairs) is as important
> an aspect as the exchange of the assertions themselves
> as it will allow for the development/migration of applications
> that can delegate these (Auth o/e) functions to a blankety-blank
> compliant service provider.
>
> Maybe Security Assertion Service and eXchange Protocol
> (SASXP)?
>
> My $0.02,
>
> Chris
>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > --bob
> >
> > Bob Blakley
> > Chief Scientist, Security
> > Tivoli Systems, Inc.
> >
> > "Chanliau, Marc" <> on 01/29/2001 03:56:11 PM
> >
> > To: "Orchard, David" <>, Philip
> Hallam-Baker
> > <>, "'Eve Maler'" <>,
> >
> > cc:
> > Subject: RE: What shall we name our specification(s)?
> >
> > How about SAML (Security Assertion Markup Language).
> > Marc Chanliau
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Orchard, David [mailto:]
> > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 4:44 PM
> > To: Philip Hallam-Baker; 'Eve Maler';
> >
> > Subject: RE: What shall we name our specification(s)?
> >
> > I know you are keen on getting the focus on authorization,
> but I'm not too
> > interested in dropping authentication and keeping
> authorization. Either
> > authent +author, or neither would be my interest.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Philip Hallam-Baker [mailto:]
> > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 12:23 PM
> > To: 'Eve Maler';
> > Subject: RE: What shall we name our specification(s)?
> >
> > My objection to A2ML was that specifying Authentication in
> the name to me
> > implies that we would be supporting authenticated key
> exchange, which is
> > something I don't want to do in an OASIS group, that is
> something I would
> > prefer to do in a closed group of cryptographers and
> network security
> > protocol engineers.
> >
> > On the other hand "Authorization Assertion Markup
> Language" would have the
> > initials A2ML, thus indicating the warm touchy feely get
> together vibes
> > people want, being clearly a descendent of S2ML and Auth
> XML (whose current
> > voting success I take note of).
> >
> > Does anyone else have definite feelings towards the
> binding of the second
> > A?
> >
> > Phill
>
