From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore To: James Morris Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] Static/fallback external labels for NetLabel Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:24:06 -0400 Cc: casey@schaufler-ca.com, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, Darrel Goeddel , Stephen Smalley , kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com, joe@nall.com, Eric Paris References: <454500.99769.qm@web36612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200708241549.05839.paul.moore@hp.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200708241624.07074.paul.moore@hp.com> Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov On Friday, August 24 2007 4:17:00 pm James Morris wrote: > On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Paul Moore wrote: > > Feel free to suggest something better, I don't think anyone was ever > > really in love with the term "secmark label". I believe at one point > > Stephen suggested "iptables label", does that sound any better? > > I like packet label, because it's a label based on the attributes of the > packet. [Sorry, I forgot about this suggestion when replying] I was always a little nervous that just the term "packet label" would get confusing ... are we talking about the "peer" packet label or the "packet" packet label ... but I see your point. What do other people think? I know you've got an opinion Casey ... -- paul moore linux security @ hp -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.