Re: [HASMAT] moving forward - working group name

=JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com> Thu, 02 September 2010 22:17 UTC

DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=kingsmountain.com; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=tt6/Il5CChdDb0ssLIk3aCk1+sZ3iru7v1W514tsjUkvb1utyPsKKMBSIfxYLmFO9is550NhXwPKC8mksDJE1xvWwwLSyYrgxahQ/IoEAk5cuZ5l9E70qdShN9O5728L;
Message-ID: <4C8022B0.9080102@KingsMountain.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:18:24 -0700
From: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF HASMAT list <hasmat@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [HASMAT] moving forward - working group name
Precedence: list

Brandon Sterne <bsterne@mozilla.com> noted:
 >
 > Personally, I do think WEBAPPSEC is the right name.  Someone pointed out
 > that webappsec.org is registered already, but that space is occupied by
 > the Web Application Security Consortium ...
 >  Other than the domain issue, is this still a problem?

I don't think this is a problem because we're talking about an IETF Working 
Group name here, where there usually isn't a stand-alone external domain name 
used in conjunction with it (tho it does occur sometimes).

That said, WebAppSec is 9 chars and that's a problem for various IETF tooling 
as previously noted (and I can attest to having messed around with "http-state" 
vs "httpstate").

as I said earlier (24-Aug)..

   ... we could use "websec" with the understanding (and explicitness in the
   charter) that it's "minus authn & transport".

   "websec" will [arguably] be easier for IETF newbies to find and grok
   than "hasmat".


=JeffH

Re: [HASMAT] moving forward - working group name =JeffH