Re: [HASMAT] moving forward - working group name

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

Return-Path: <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
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 C99C03A6967 for <hasmat@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.984
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.984 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.281, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 5NYn2cUYmKFD for <hasmat@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:17:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cpoproxy2-pub.bluehost.com (cpoproxy2-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.39.38]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B29F43A6874 for <hasmat@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:17:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 9112 invoked by uid 0); 2 Sep 2010 22:18:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box514.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.114) by cpoproxy2.bluehost.com with SMTP; 2 Sep 2010 22:18:25 -0000
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;
Received: from outbound4.ebay.com ([216.113.168.128] helo=[10.244.48.205]) by box514.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>) id 1OrI6z-0007QD-9s for hasmat@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:18:25 -0600
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
X-Identified-User: {11025:box514.bluehost.com:kingsmou:kingsmountain.com} {sentby:smtp auth 216.113.168.128 authed with jeff.hodges+kingsmountain.com}
Subject: Re: [HASMAT] moving forward - working group name
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 22:17:56 -0000

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