Re: [websec] Session Continuation = Session Bound State?

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Tue, 19 March 2013 15:21 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D771EC64-65A1-4EE1-A511-3FE750257E71@checkpoint.com>
References: <CAMm+Lwge7VBNWvWG01UN4j9=1nB+b8prusSVxgOpOcNLbZT8Sg@mail.gmail.com> <D771EC64-65A1-4EE1-A511-3FE750257E71@checkpoint.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:21:14 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOivpTzy4fe9_SQU1aYRR1fQJdKmc7Pin7-kSa8JQ41Dcg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: websec <websec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [websec] Session Continuation = Session Bound State?
Precedence: list

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> wrote:
> I'm kind of partial to "session management"

I am too, but am afraid that that can lead to confusion, since we're
only dealing with establishment, use, and synchronous destruction of
sessions, not any other aspect of session management (e.g., listing
active sessions, administrative session destruction, setting of
session parameter negotiation parameters, ...).

I've liked both terms Phillip has proposed so far: Session Continuation, and:

>> How about Session Bound State as the term of art?

I'd also be happy with:  Session Layer.  (And: Cookie Slayer, and any
other punny names we might think of :)

Nico
--

[websec] Session Continuation = Session Bound Sta… Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [websec] Session Continuation = Session Bound… Yoav Nir
Re: [websec] Session Continuation = Session Bound… Tobias Gondrom
Re: [websec] Session Continuation = Session Bound… Harry Halpin
Re: [websec] Session Continuation = Session Bound… Nico Williams
[websec] Starting work on Session Continuation/Bo… Yoav Nir
Re: [websec] Session Continuation = Session Bound… Richard Barnes