[Txauth] Interrupt on choosing the TXAuth name

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Sat, 16 May 2020 01:56 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
X-Original-To: txauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: txauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60D693A0858 for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 18:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gvyzhu-sGITZ for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 18:56:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from veto.sei.cmu.edu (veto.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BD0E3A085B for <txauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2020 18:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from delp.sei.cmu.edu (delp.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.31]) by veto.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 04G1uZKU006169 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2020 21:56:35 -0400
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 veto.sei.cmu.edu 04G1uZKU006169
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cert.org; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1589594195; bh=w2d1WM7IdDnIBIXmk+ErSuxDh6wpziuHyH/R2ioQwzc=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:From; b=L3Ua4h7g0ctxPqSG2DK4Ynz3PQZlPQI+Yi0u/JlxcO+2sna0YBofV1Osqj7Dx/epA EttW6018WYcM/nHY4/x65gB1qhDu2T6w3dvJikBV21GsKWRHsnlPoo9q1nb53g3Wzw 30gxP6NYcLyyLya+d5Mo6xN7QcDqcPGQ29IeBYJ8=
Received: from CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cascade.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.248]) by delp.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 04G1uYSC012355 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2020 21:56:34 -0400
Received: from MURIEL.ad.sei.cmu.edu (147.72.252.47) by CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu (10.64.28.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.487.0; Fri, 15 May 2020 21:56:33 -0400
Received: from MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu (147.72.252.46) by MURIEL.ad.sei.cmu.edu (147.72.252.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1847.3; Fri, 15 May 2020 21:56:33 -0400
Received: from MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([fe80::555b:9498:552e:d1bb]) by MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([fe80::555b:9498:552e:d1bb%22]) with mapi id 15.01.1847.007; Fri, 15 May 2020 21:56:33 -0400
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: "txauth@ietf.org" <txauth@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Interrupt on choosing the TXAuth name
Thread-Index: AdYrIomum7oFsEgnRGy74BjzX9W8JA==
Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 01:56:33 +0000
Message-ID: <276b642a3d5f40cca883e2b479f1221e@cert.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.202.241]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/-jbkCL5xVTZjVbUkxzbzvcaUY1Y>
Subject: [Txauth] Interrupt on choosing the TXAuth name
X-BeenThere: txauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <txauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/txauth>, <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/txauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:txauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth>, <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 01:56:40 -0000

Hi all!

I'm posting this as a separate thread so further helpful feedback on [1] can continue if anyone wants to comment more.  As I noted in [2] there are some questions on whether we should have confidence in the decido-based process.  Given this situation, [1] suggested a follow-up approach, but additional process questions quickly arose.

A few core tenants as we move forward:

** we aren't going to vote on the name 
** the May 18th deadline previously set to decide is going to be pushed back
** we'll have an upfront, complete description of approach that will be taken when we kick it off

The co-chairs and I need an opportunity to confer on how to best elicit the community consensus on the name.  We'll post something soon for review.

Regards,
Roman

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/uEOZ2lVRKLw_UG1GI5NOwpqLnt8/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/uEOZ2lVRKLw_UG1GI5NOwpqLnt8/