atom feed11 messages in What shall we name our specificat...
FromSent OnAttachments
Philip Hallam-BakerJan 29, 2001 1:39 pm 
Orchard, DavidJan 29, 2001 1:46 pm 
Chanliau, MarcJan 29, 2001 1:58 pm 
Geor...@tivoli.comJan 29, 2001 2:03 pm 
Chanliau, MarcJan 29, 2001 2:05 pm 
christopher ferrisJan 29, 2001 2:13 pm 
Carlisle AdamsJan 29, 2001 2:13 pm 
Philip Hallam-BakerJan 29, 2001 2:32 pm 
Mishra, PrateekJan 29, 2001 3:06 pm 
Orchard, DavidJan 29, 2001 5:00 pm 
Krishna SankarFeb 5, 2001 3:47 pm 
Subject:RE: What shall we name our specification(s)?
From:Orchard, David (
Date:Jan 29, 2001 1:46:30 pm

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.


-----Original Message----- From: Philip Hallam-Baker [] 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?