[ On Tuesday, October 15, 2002 at 20:58:49 (+0930), Brett Lymn wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: what's in a name? fingerprinted exec
>
> Yes.. I agree with all the above but I thought "fingerprinted exec"
> too cumbersome myself, some other thoughts for names I just had were:
> 
> 1) secure exec
> 2) trusted exec
> 3) verified exec

I think "secure" is way too far loaded with incorrect and even
potentaily damaging connotations and (mis-)perceptions.

> At the moment I think 2 conveys what I am on about best...(but 1 means
> less changes for me ;-)

I'm not sure "trusted" is exactly right either.

I think "verified" is really more along the lines of what's being done.
 
-- 
								Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;            <g.a.woods@ieee.org>;           <woods@robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>