[Openid-specs-risc] Reviewing the workgroup name

[Atul Tulshibagwale]

I suspect this one is going to last a bit because it is a “magic quadrant”,
and many companies will publicize it.

Since this is not yet an actual issue, we can defer this discussion. For
now, we can call it “OpenID SSE” to disambiguate if needed.

Atul

On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 8:42 AM Lee Tschetter <lee.tschetter at okta.com> wrote:

> Gartner makes up new terms every month and, as far as I am concerned, we
> don't need to change anything just because they have a new acronym. I have
> been using the term SSE both internally and externally with multiple
> partners so I'd like to keep that name.
>
>
> Lee Tschetter
> Director of Technical Strategy
> Corporate Development
> 516-654-5454
> Lee.Tschetter at okta.com
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 10:27 AM Tim Cappalli via Openid-specs-risc <
> openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net> wrote:
>
>> *This message originated outside your organization.*
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> I just finally got people to start saying SSE instead of RISC so I'd like
>> to avoid any name changes unless absolutely necessary.
>>
>> tim
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Openid-specs-risc <openid-specs-risc-bounces at lists.openid.net>
>> on behalf of Shayne Miel (smiel) via Openid-specs-risc <
>> openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net>
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 4, 2022 09:26
>> *To:* Atul Tulshibagwale <atultulshi at gmail.com>; Openid-specs-risc <
>> openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net>; Martin Gallo <mgallo at secureauth.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-risc] Reviewing the workgroup name
>>
>> I don't have a good way of knowing whether we need to change the name or
>> not, so I'll leave that decision to others.
>>
>> If we do, I'll third the vote for Shared Signals. But, like Martin said,
>> being the "SS working group" is problematic. With the name being shorter,
>> we could just insist that nobody use an abbreviation. That's honestly
>> better for accessibility anyway. There are too many acronyms in the
>> security world as it is.
>>
>> Shayne
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Openid-specs-risc <openid-specs-risc-bounces at lists.openid.net>
>> on behalf of Martin Gallo via Openid-specs-risc <
>> openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net>
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 4, 2022 8:29 AM
>> *To:* Atul Tulshibagwale <atultulshi at gmail.com>; Openid-specs-risc <
>> openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-risc] Reviewing the workgroup name
>>
>>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I don’t think we should rush to change our working group name based on
>> this new Garter report.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, if we decide so, I prefer something like option #1 (although the
>> initials might not be the best fit). While securing Webhooks as one of the
>> potential uses of the SSE Framework, from a conceptual standpoint I
>> consider it covering a wider set of use cases and feel that we might
>> constraint it too much by focusing only on Webhooks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bests,
>>
>> Martin.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Openid-specs-risc <openid-specs-risc-bounces at lists.openid.net> *On
>> Behalf Of *Atul Tulshibagwale via Openid-specs-risc
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 3, 2022 9:19 PM
>> *To:* Openid-specs-risc <openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net>
>> *Subject:* [Openid-specs-risc] Reviewing the workgroup name
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm a bit concerned that one of the two parts of the Gartner SASE
>> Framework is called "SSE" (Security Service Edge). This part got more
>> publicity recently from a new report by Gartner:
>>
>> 'Security service edge’ splits off from SASE in new Gartner Magic Quadrant
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Fventurebeat.com*2F2022*2F02*2F18*2Fsecurity-service-edge-splits-off-from-sase-in-new-gartner-magic-quadrant*2F&data=04*7C01*7Ctim.cappalli*40microsoft.com*7C0949cd5ff9f449d01cb808d9fdeaf238*7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47*7C1*7C0*7C637820008523907814*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000&sdata=i3PESBSOrX6a8DHk0F*2BOL*2BarQU2*2Bs7nLoLiQlJZDnhU*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!PwKahg!ttLntVfI38CBUj7tRXqR1bPnnDpJBXW29lI3ff4LBO-MnfZeOF82Dm_csUxFmT3U$>
>>
>>
>>
>> Since our areas overlap quite a bit, I feel this is causing some
>> confusion about what SSE is. It's unlikely that we can get Gartner to
>> change the name from SSE to something else, so we may have to change our
>> working group name to avoid confusion.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, I'd like to find out if the WG is willing to review the name of the
>> working group. I can think of a couple of possibilities for a new name:
>>
>>    1. *Shared Signals*: Instead of "Shared Signals and Events", we
>>    rename the working group to the "OpenID Shared Signals Working Group", and
>>    the framework specification is renamed to the "Shared Signals Framework"
>>    2. *Secure Webhooks*: Since the framework is mainly about
>>    establishing a standardized way of doing webhooks, we can rename the
>>    working group to be the "OpenID Secure Webhooks Working Group", and the
>>    framework specification to be called the "Secure Webhooks Framework"
>>
>> I have a slight preference for #1, since it is a term that is used right
>> now instead of SSE (e.g. the Cisco website is called
>> "sharedsignals.guide"), but I'm happy to hear what everyone thinks. I'd
>> like to have this as one of the agenda items for Tuesday.
>>
>>
>>
>> Atul
>>
> _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-risc mailing list
>> Openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net
>> https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-risc
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-risc/attachments/20220304/f26e2ab2/attachment.html>