RE: What shall we name our specification(s)?

I 
voted for that as soon as I saw it on the evite poll, b4 this message 
:-)

 

Dave

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Chanliau, Marc 
  [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 1:56 
  PM
To: Orchard, David; Philip Hallam-Baker; 'Eve Maler'; 
  
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