Actually, I was trying to avoid admitting in public that I have no idea
what "<Protocol>" is supposed to be
used for, so "yes" would be an answer I could live with if no one has a
good idea....
--bob
Bob Blakley (email: phone: +1 512 436 1564)
Chief Scientist, Security and Privacy, Tivoli Systems, Inc.
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <> on 08/20/2001 03:45:03 PM
Please respond to "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <>
To: George Robert Blakley III/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Hal Lockhart
<>
cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <>,
"''"
<>
Subject: RE: Question re: core-12 Authenication Code
The bigger issue is whether <Protocol> and <AuthenticationMethod> are the
same element (Say yes).
Phill
Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng.
Principal Scientist
VeriSign Inc.
781 245 6996 x227
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Robert Blakley III [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 4:36 PM
> To: Hal Lockhart
> Cc: 'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'; ''
> Subject: RE: Question re: core-12 Authenication Code
>
>
> 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>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
