[Openid-specs-risc] Reviewing the workgroup name

[Lee Tschetter]

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/d35f57c3/attachment-0001.html>