IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [HASMAT] moving forward

Brandon Sterne <bsterne@mozilla.com> Thu, 02 September 2010 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <bsterne@mozilla.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 1B7093A6927 for <hasmat@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 12:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 0+KwPm1exLMT for <hasmat@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 12:04:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dm-mail02.mozilla.org (dm-mail02.mozilla.org [63.245.208.176]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECB0F3A685E for <hasmat@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 12:04:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mozilla.org
Received: from [10.250.1.47] (v74-nslb.mozilla.org [10.2.74.4]) (Authenticated sender: bsterne@mozilla.com) by dm-mail02.mozilla.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 378D88240C8; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 12:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4C7FF667.7000406@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:09:27 -0700
From: Brandon Sterne <bsterne@mozilla.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100825 Thunderbird/3.1.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>
References: <4C6EC48A.5020803@stpeter.im> <4C7D6949.5040401@mozilla.com> <4C7ED5F9.30103@stpeter.im> <4C7FDE3A.6050100@gondrom.org>
In-Reply-To: <4C7FDE3A.6050100@gondrom.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: hasmat@ietf.org
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 19:04:56 -0000

 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.

-Brandon

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email