Re: "Web Security Context" die die die

I'd be neutral on a name-change, but for finding a better
way to explain what's being done.

Close, Tyler J. wrote:
> As discussed on the telecon today, I've found the name "Web Security
> Context" to be purely an impediment in explaining to people what this
> Working Group is doing. We're going to pick a document title and short
> name soon, so I am starting a thread to pick a better name.
> 
> I think a first step is to get the term "user interface" into the name.
> This WG is *all* about UI, so let's put that in the name.
> 
> Looking over our draft Note and use cases, it also seems this WG is
> mostly about website authentication to the user, so let's get that into
> the name as well. Confidentiality and data integrity can be seen as
> subordinate to authentication, since without authentication their
> meaning is less clear.

Don't quite agree there. Seems to me that you're right about
mechanisms but also wrong at the level of services/requirements,
where there is a confidentiality requirement that is independent
of authentication. (The fact that we've no great mechanisms
that can do that is probably not top of most user's TODO lists;-)

So I think "security" is actually better, even if its ambiguous
in lots of ways.

> As a first kick at the can, I suggest the name "WAUI: Website
> Authentication User Interface", pronounced "wowie".

Sounds like we should arrange a meeting in Hawaii!

S.

Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 21:56:12 UTC