I would strongly recommend keeping the work secure or
security someplace in the name. This is technically
appropriate and will also help identify us in dealing with
a broad cross-section of IT and non-IT savvy folks. Lets
keep in mind that the latter function is an important aspect of
the final name.
- prateek
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Hallam-Baker [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 5:32 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: What shall we name our specification(s)?
>
>
> 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
> >
>
