Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - TMI BFF

[Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Brian!

I agree that this is the best course of action at this point.

Regards,
 Rifaat


On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 3:02 PM Brian Campbell <bcampbell=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> While I admit to being somewhat partial to the acronym, it's not for any
> sound technical or informational reason. To be honest, before I became
> enamored with my own perceived cleverness of TMI-BFF, I also thought the
> use of "BFF" in the context of the draft wasn't quite appropriate.
>
> At this point, I propose that Vittorio and I step back and rework the
> draft a bit and then resume the call for adoption after we spin a new
> revision. We'll eliminate the problematic use of BFF and address some of
> the more straightforward feedback from the interim.
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 3:03 PM Aaron Parecki <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Okay, I have come around to this idea and agree that we shouldn't use
>> "BFF" to refer to this pattern. The only reason I am continuing the
>> discussion in this thread is that if we agree we should avoid the term BFF
>> for this draft, I would like to see it renamed before it is adopted, to
>> avoid any confusion at the start.
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 10:28 AM Jim Manico <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 Mr. Hardt. BFF aims to avoid access tokens in UA's so TMI-BFF is a
>>> badly branded name that will add confusion.
>>>
>>> - Jim
>>> On 5/4/21 11:25 AM, Dick Hardt wrote:
>>>
>>> My concern with BFF is that the common meaning is what the document
>>> calls Full BFF -- so what many readers will assume is BFF is not what the
>>> document is referring to.
>>> ᐧ
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 8:03 AM Aaron Parecki <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I support adoption. I'm also fine with the BFF acronym since it's
>>>> common in the software development world already. If anything, the TMI
>>>> acronym is the least strong of the two as it's missing a letter from the
>>>> full name of the draft.
>>>>
>>>> Aaron
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 7:40 AM Dick Hardt <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm supportive -- but am concerned with the BFF acronym.
>>>>> ᐧ
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 3:00 PM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <
>>>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a call for adoption for the *Token Mediating and Session
>>>>>> Information Backend for Frontend* as a WG document:
>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bertocci-oauth2-tmi-bff/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please, provide your feedback on the mailing list by *May 17th*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>  Rifaat & Hannes
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ---
>>>> Aaron Parecki
>>>> https://aaronparecki.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Manico
>>> Manicode Securityhttps://www.manicode.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and
> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any
> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from
> your computer. Thank you.*_______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>