Re: [HASMAT] moving forward

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Thu, 02 September 2010 19:10 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: hasmat@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hasmat@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B5963A6962 for <hasmat@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 12:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QPUOADzZnYKP for <hasmat@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 12:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D340B3A6886 for <hasmat@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 12:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-245.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-245.cisco.com [64.101.72.245]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7986840074 for <hasmat@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 13:14:27 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4C7FF6D7.8050202@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:11:19 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: hasmat@ietf.org
References: <4C6EC48A.5020803@stpeter.im> <4C7D6949.5040401@mozilla.com> <4C7ED5F9.30103@stpeter.im> <4C7FDE3A.6050100@gondrom.org> <4C7FF667.7000406@mozilla.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C7FF667.7000406@mozilla.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [HASMAT] moving forward
X-BeenThere: hasmat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: HTTP Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <hasmat.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hasmat>, <mailto:hasmat-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hasmat>
List-Post: <mailto:hasmat@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hasmat-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hasmat>, <mailto:hasmat-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:10:53 -0000

On 9/2/10 1:09 PM, Brandon Sterne wrote:
>  On 09/02/2010 10:26 AM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
>> @Brandon: I agree with Peter on the length of the WG name. (after all
>> its a technical short name, the WG scope is defined in the charter). So
>> far a couple of people suggested websec, which would be very close to
>> your proposal.
>> May I ask, how do you think about that name? Do you see strong reasons
>> against it compared to webappsec?
>>
>> Greetings, Tobias
>>
> I, personally, can live with "WEBSEC" and was unaware of the name length
> constraints.  Mnot's "HTTPSEC" isn't bad either.

Naming matters because folks might expect that the work could expand to
fill the space allotted. Might this group someday (after other work is
completed and after rechartering etc.) be interested in all things HTTP
security, e.g., proposals for new authentication methods? The "HTTPSEC"
and "WEBSEC" names are fairly broad.

In any case, more pressing is the issue Barry brought about getting the
charter right, especially with respect to the framework objectives.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/