ild guessing..
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On 5/3/06, Jesse Pelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Good catch. It's a registered trademark, no less, and in a related
>> >> >> field, so I dou
it
>> for
>> >> a project name. Too bad.
>> >>
>> >> -jesse-
>> >>
>> >> -Original Message-
>> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 20
tch. It's a registered trademark, no less, and in a related
>> >> field, so I doubt SecureWave would be pleased to have Apache use it
>> for
>> >> a project name. Too bad.
>> >>
>> >> -jesse-
>> >>
>> >> -Original Message-
&
oubt SecureWave would be pleased to have Apache use it for
>> a project name. Too bad.
>>
>> -jesse-
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:26 AM
>> To: security-de
t;>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:26 AM
>> To: security-dev@xml.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: TLP Resolution
>>
>> Sanctuary is a cool name. However there is a
; ,"Citadel," "Surety,"
>>>> "Security
>>>> Blanket" (or "Linus," with a nod to Charles Schulz' "Peanuts," but
>>>> you'd
>>>> want to get permission). With the possible exception of the last, none
>>>>
sure it has the right
connotations, though.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Raul Benito
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 11:51 AM
To: security-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: TLP Resolution
Sad, I like the name,
Perhaps a translation: Sa
ve would be pleased to have Apache use it for
a project name. Too bad.
-jesse-
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:26 AM
To: security-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: TLP Resolution
Sanctuary is a cool name. However there i
AM
To: security-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: TLP Resolution
Sanctuary is a cool name. However there is a product named Sanctuary by
SecureWave: http://www.securewave.com/endpoint_security_solutions.jsp
--Sean
for obscure references, though.
But the name is really the last piece. You need a clearly articulated
purpose and scope before you can come up with a name that fits.
-Original Message-
From: Berin Lautenbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 3:13 AM
To: security-dev@xml.apa
penchant for obscure references, though.
>>
>>But the name is really the last piece. You need a clearly articulated
>>purpose and scope before you can come up with a name that fits.
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Berin Lautenbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
eed a clearly articulated
>>purpose and scope before you can come up with a name that fits.
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Berin Lautenbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 3:13 AM
>>To: security-dev@xml.apache.org
>>Subject: Re: TLP
#x27;d
> > want to get permission). With the possible exception of the last, none
> > of these indulge the Apache penchant for obscure references, though.
> >
> > But the name is really the last piece. You need a clearly articulated
> > purpose and scope before you ca
;
> -Original Message-
> From: Berin Lautenbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 3:13 AM
> To: security-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: TLP Resolution
>
> Thoughts welcome :>.
>
> Berin Lautenbach wrote:
>
> > OK - I'm g
e up with a name that fits.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Berin Lautenbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 3:13 AM
> To: security-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: TLP Resolution
>
> Thoughts welcome :>.
>
> Berin Lautenbach wro
. You need a clearly articulated
purpose and scope before you can come up with a name that fits.
-Original Message-
From: Berin Lautenbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 3:13 AM
To: security-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: TLP Resolution
Thoughts welcome :>.
Be
I do not have problems with xml security as an Apache TLP.
+1. I do note Raul's concerns however.
Ax/
-Original Message-
From: Berin Lautenbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 11 March 2006 05:50 AM
To: security-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: TLP Resolution
Peoples,
Sometime back we talk
+0 from me.
I think is a good idea to have XKMS server or Federation
implemenatation, or more security.
But on the other hand I don't know if we can cope with the increase
of the scope with the lack of resources we have. For example the web
pages haven't been change with the new SVN... We don't
SORRY, complately wrong addressed, IGNORE Plz
Wouter
-Original Message-
From: Wouter Ketting
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:32
To: security-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: RE: TLP Resolution
-Original Message-
From: Berin Lautenbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday
ch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:13
To: security-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: TLP Resolution
Thoughts welcome :>.
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> OK - I'm going to take the idea to the board.
>
> Before I do - we need a couple of things.
>
> 1. A
Thoughts welcome :>.
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> OK - I'm going to take the idea to the board.
>
> Before I do - we need a couple of things.
>
> 1. A name. I'd personally be against anything fancy or non-obvious.
> But I don't really want to use "Apache Security" as I think it will get
> too co
OK - I'm going to take the idea to the board.
Before I do - we need a couple of things.
1. A name. I'd personally be against anything fancy or non-obvious.
But I don't really want to use "Apache Security" as I think it will get
too confusing against the security group within the ASF (the group
Ben Laurie wrote:
> It sounds like a very good idea to me, I'd certainly support it. Of
> course, we already have a CA. Written in, errr, perl :-)
. Was waiting for the perl comment :>. To put into context, my
original comment was after spending 5 hours fighting with OpenCA.
Cheers,
Be
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Dear Ben and Dear Ben,
>
> what do you guys think? A Security Federation/TLP/PMC. Starting with
> Apache XML-Security and Apache Juice.
It sounds like a very good idea to me, I'd certainly support it. Of
course, we already have a CA. Written in, errr, perl :-)
Cheers,
+1 and agree with comments below, though need to worry a little about
focus. I am just a lurker here, but would be interested in the proposed
project.
Phil
Werner Dittmann wrote:
+1 from me.
Just a comment regarding the charter: is it really only Apache XML
Security? IMHO this would be a
Dear Ben and Dear Ben,
what do you guys think? A Security Federation/TLP/PMC. Starting with
Apache XML-Security and Apache Juice.
thanks,
-- dims
On 3/11/06, Berin Lautenbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would be interested in widening it as well - with the proviso that it
> is like a federati
I would be interested in widening it as well - with the proviso that it
is like a federation. I.e. we use it to seed projects then build them
and spawn them into TLPs once they grow to size.
I might start sounding some people out.
Dims - what's your thoughts?
On the subject - having spent the m
+1 from me.
Just a comment regarding the charter: is it really only Apache XML
Security? IMHO this would be a bit too narrow, for example JuiCE is
not dependent on XML, maybe other security related software will be
pop up later as well.
I would like to see an "Apache Security" PMC that would addr
+1 from me
On 3/10/06, Berin Lautenbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peoples,
>
> Sometime back we talked about becoming a TLP. With the recent JuiCE
> efforts, + JSR 105 + XKMS we are starting to see a few different things
> occuring. I'd be hugely in favour of starting something at a higher
>
29 matches
Mail list logo
