Re: Capabilities by any other name Marc Stiegler (marcs@skyhunter.com)
Tue, 9 Nov 1999 18:55:32 -0700

I am reluctant to endorse "cap" all by itself as a name because this syllable has too many meanings; I dislike "ref" because I use that to just mean object references that have no security implications (and so do other people); starting from Ping's "capability keys", how about "capkeys"?

Just stirring the pot :-)

--marcs



From: Tyler Close <tyler@waterken.com>
To: Ka-Ping Yee <ping@lfw.org>; Douglas Crockford <crock@communities.com> Cc: <shapj@us.ibm.com>; <e-lang@eros-os.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 5:01 PM Subject: RE: Capabilities by any other name

> Ping wrote:
> > Here are some terms i would be comfortable with:
> >
> > "capabilities"
> > "capability pointers"
> > "capability keys"
> > "object keys"
> > "object capability security"
> > "object-based security"