<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
I just finally got people to start saying SSE instead of RISC so I'd like to avoid any name changes unless absolutely necessary.</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
tim</div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Openid-specs-risc <openid-specs-risc-bounces@lists.openid.net> on behalf of Shayne Miel (smiel) via Openid-specs-risc <openid-specs-risc@lists.openid.net><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, March 4, 2022 09:26<br>
<b>To:</b> Atul Tulshibagwale <atultulshi@gmail.com>; Openid-specs-risc <openid-specs-risc@lists.openid.net>; Martin Gallo <mgallo@secureauth.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Openid-specs-risc] Reviewing the workgroup name</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<style type="text/css" style="display:none">
<!--
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
-->
</style>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
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.</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
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.</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Shayne</div>
<div id="x_appendonsend"></div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="x_divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><b>From:</b> Openid-specs-risc <openid-specs-risc-bounces@lists.openid.net> on behalf of Martin Gallo via Openid-specs-risc <openid-specs-risc@lists.openid.net><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, March 4, 2022 8:29 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Atul Tulshibagwale <atultulshi@gmail.com>; Openid-specs-risc <openid-specs-risc@lists.openid.net><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Openid-specs-risc] Reviewing the workgroup name</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
p.x_x_MsoNormal, li.x_x_MsoNormal, div.x_x_MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif}
a:link, span.x_x_MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline}
span.x_x_EmailStyle18
{font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D}
.x_x_MsoChpDefault
{font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif}
@page WordSection1
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in}
-->
</style>
<div lang="EN-US" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="x_x_WordSection1">
<p class="x_x_MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Hey all,</span></p>
<p class="x_x_MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I don’t think we should rush to change our working group name based on this new Garter report.</span></p>
<p class="x_x_MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="x_x_MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">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.</span></p>
<p class="x_x_MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="x_x_MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Bests,</span></p>
<p class="x_x_MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Martin.</span></p>
<p class="x_x_MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<div style="border:none; border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="x_x_MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Openid-specs-risc <openid-specs-risc-bounces@lists.openid.net>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Atul Tulshibagwale via Openid-specs-risc<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, March 3, 2022 9:19 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Openid-specs-risc <openid-specs-risc@lists.openid.net><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Openid-specs-risc] Reviewing the workgroup name</p>
</div>
<p class="x_x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="x_x_MsoNormal">Hi all,</p>
<div>
<p class="x_x_MsoNormal">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: </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_x_MsoNormal"><a href="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" originalsrc="https://venturebeat.com/2022/02/18/security-service-edge-splits-off-from-sase-in-new-gartner-magic-quadrant/" shash="ZBNkHeahG6wl6hX6oq7aQxgfWPJ8/UzS+B8qFKox/922FoqXwxOcqwMUdtsCYMkSygntkfs1h/dxceutDjCdAHZuP3hfR2Lh588a3AHweapbPzvkpkdfdGeD7fTjMcZvVpjCdS5E9zeeInZII0dsYUCIp3FH2Wxz6HjIHWGUgW4=">'Security
service edge’ splits off from SASE in new Gartner Magic Quadrant</a></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_x_MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_x_MsoNormal">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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_x_MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_x_MsoNormal">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:</p>
</div>
<div>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="x_x_MsoNormal" style=""><b>Shared Signals</b>: 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"</li><li class="x_x_MsoNormal" style=""><b>Secure Webhooks</b>: 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"</li></ol>
<div>
<p class="x_x_MsoNormal">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.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_x_MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_x_MsoNormal">Atul</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>