I agree "authn method" is better. In fact, I remember complaining about
authn type even as I was writing it down.
--bob
Bob Blakley (email: phone: +1 512 436 1564)
Chief Scientist, Security and Privacy, Tivoli Systems, Inc.
Hal Lockhart <> on 08/20/2001 02:36:39 PM
To: "'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'" <>,
"''"
<>
cc:
Subject: RE: Question re: core-12 Authenication Code
Actually, I checked and the whiteboard transcription says "AuthN type". I
consider AuthN Method to be preferable.
Hal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 6:48 PM
> To: 'Hal Lockhart'; ''
> Subject: RE: Question re: core-12 Authenication Code
>
>
> I think it came off the whiteboard.
>
> I would very much like to rename it, AuthenticationMethod
> sounds good to me.
> I think we should also rename the protocol element in
> <Authenticator> to be
> the same.
>
> [We can also change authenticator but that is another story and first
> someone needs to come up with a better name, HolderOfKey being worse]
>
> Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng.
> Principal Scientist
> VeriSign Inc.
>
> 781 245 6996 x227
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hal Lockhart [mailto:]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 5:29 PM
> > To: ''
> > Subject: Question re: core-12 Authenication Code
> >
> >
> > I was wondering why the term "Authentication Code" was
> chosen for the
> > consensus schema. I thought we had been using "Authentication
> > Method" a term
> > that seems more intuitive to me.
> >
> > Hal
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> >
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
