Re: [Txauth] Call for WG name preferences

David Skaife <> Wed, 20 May 2020 09:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38CA53A00E0 for <>; Wed, 20 May 2020 02:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Du3fRLE8O8FS for <>; Wed, 20 May 2020 02:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::531]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03A903A03F6 for <>; Wed, 20 May 2020 02:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id h16so2383911eds.5 for <>; Wed, 20 May 2020 02:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=q+5/AYqHuoe3IbhtOrS5Or6eZD9kw3ox1XOojOojnWQ=; b=p5adS8TjRIkn3xTaNk5zkf0zFQskGe6GfQ4OlGMTcjhrF/b4yBvxHeOIP4xU201ZWL zUVo58JU5gKW6yfLn/VHFllxyohvL0j00J8+0TgMuPN0dPxRinzGnKnPutOZoinuVRSE iGubTSkjH7Ov/oxHf9LQRnt3y7GTMdvQc9+FHqQ7s3GEKHDg09w14jNAQtZL9oj727aE nnLoVUEW9wBXj/CThy9QLDzLRS9rEdx2T5BMMIdQAVJxyM7KYeFwdvzgB4mlj5blcf+E E6kQpP2nDtNTdb2wMH1VOyS48SAdkpIrMh13oEpszNkjGbceIS6CUrqaY1Ag4lAa/34S Zagg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=q+5/AYqHuoe3IbhtOrS5Or6eZD9kw3ox1XOojOojnWQ=; b=JbIlkR9fPTs58gEJ6RUT6Itt1hYY00ii/bdb9Jv4Ahb6m4WZFTnrR7YdnKPL8O6kKx lh8G4rL0xfSzcy85+aidUXUjN7h4i3Y5BP4Mi/mxzfRQKxeyHlLbVulot/YeVFxFeCoH XDlQLLNvaU8BPm/Dp/7xotLUbB+ux3M/TC3QGfkW1/6lpw9nbEKRtsoKxKLuVpiR8pWW j5Nq1mwhK27pmVDblUqqrVH+q7FjKEoHW2vvR70aPv/W3KbehJN9IIXg8CtqwABT51Mt itmisfS/BCRSPlUtxAcymuZHPQnildr6KzTlJM/2T1sfRPG8+0qE7q519jvvYjIFJvUN 65Cg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533DvkII+33/KccUFWfnsf3eawLBGQt1pgpjJ27e3uK0b4cyI5sZ wfIo/N2zfz4zqqcUZQyN0RgCaSQ3dZhCjhfb1kc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwQeaTdJ4kMBpyXIop+F35239/gr+oISgb81xG9oKacWgmLDGzsAuWD0TV7ms2hoIB60r+suQyIkrvffBS5K0U=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:798:: with SMTP id d24mr2549030edy.95.1589968231478; Wed, 20 May 2020 02:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: David Skaife <>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 10:50:19 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: Yaron Sheffer <>
Cc: "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a438f505a61153fa"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Txauth] Call for WG name preferences
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 09:50:35 -0000

Hi Yaron,

I think overall the proposed approach is sensible, however, I'm not sure
it's a good idea to allow new names to be suggested at the same time as
when people are stating which names they would and wouldn't object to. It's
going to get very chaotic if new names are being suggested at the same time
as this consensus check. Also, what happens if someone suggests a new name
a few hours before the deadline giving very little time for people to
confirm whether they object to it or not?

Would it not be more sensible to draw a line under new name suggestions
before we then state our preferences?

Many thanks,
David Skaife

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 9:34 PM Yaron Sheffer <> wrote:

> Hi!
> After reviewing the community feedback and discussions with the AD, we’d
> like to again launch a process to elicit feedback on naming.  Our proposal
> is below.  We’d appreciate any clarifying questions, proposed improvements
> or objections by 0800 UTC, Thursday, May 21st .
> Thanks,
>         Yaron and Dick
> PS, I’m sharing the load with Dick and taking point on this consensus call
> -- Yaron
> ----
> Before we submit the draft charter [1] to the IESG, we wanted to explore
> the name of the group. During the chartering discussions, some people
> objected to the BoF name being the WG name.  We’d like to get consensus on
> what the WG name should be.  Our first attempt to elicit input [2] wasn’t
> successful, and this is a second attempt to get consensus from the
> community.
> To get to consensus, we want to gather preferences on the currently known
> WG name candidates. Our goal is not to select the most popular name -- it
> is to select a name everyone can live with and ensure that we understand
> and weigh any objections there might be with that choice.  To that end,
> we’d like to elicit your name preferences in the following way:
>  (1) In previous discussions, the following candidate names have been
> voiced (we have listed only these names that received at least one vote
> previously):
> * AAuthZ    Alternative Authorization Protocol (AAuthZ)
> * AZARP    AuthoriZed Access to Resources Protocol
> * AZARAP    AuthoriZation And Resource Access Protocol
> * BeBAuthZ    Back-end Based Authorization Protocol
> * BYOAuthZ    Build-Your-Own Authorization Protocol
> * CPAAP    Comprehensive Privileged Authentication Authorization Protocol
> * DAZARAP    Delegated AuthoriZation And Resource Access Protocol
> * DIYAuthZ    Do-It-Yourself Authorization Protocol
> * GNAP    Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol
> * GranPro    GRAnt Negotiation Protocol
> * IDPAuthZ    Intent Driven Protocol for Authorization
> * NIRAD    Negotiation of Intent Registration and Authority Delegation
> * PAuthZ    Protocol for Authorization
> * RefAuthZ    Refactored Authorization Protocol
> * ReAuthZ    Reimagined Authorization Protocol
> * TIAAP    Tokenized Identity and Access Protocol
> * TIDEAuth    Trust via Intent Driven Extension Auth
> * TIDYAuth    Trust via Intent Driven Yield Auth
> * TIEAuth    Trust via Intent Extension Auth
> * TINOA   This Is Not OAuth
> * TXAuth    Testable eXtensible Authorization
> * TxAuth      Transmission of Authority
> * TXAuth      Truly eXtensible Authorization
> * XAuthZ    eXtensible authoriZation protocol
> We would ask that you consider these names, and respond to the list with
> your selection of the following two categories:
> * “Wouldn’t Object” -- this is not necessarily your preferred name, but
> you would be comfortable with it being the name of the WG (choose as many
> names as you want)
> * “Object” -- you would be uncomfortable with the WG being named in this
> way (choose as many names as you want; please provide an explanation)
> (2) If your preferred name isn’t in the list per (1), you can send a note
> to the mailing list stating that you’d like the WG to consider a new name.
> Please ensure the name adheres to the previously discussed naming criteria
> at [3]. We still request that you provide your other preferences and
> objections.
> (3) If you previously sent in your preferences, but a new name suggestion
> or someone’s objection changed your mind, then send another message to the
> mailing list with your revised preferences.  For the purposes of consensus,
> we’ll assume that everyone who hasn’t commented on a new name introduced
> per (2) “objects” to it (i.e., we want to hear positive confirmation of
> preference on new names).
> (4) Please provide your input by 0800 UTC June 4, 2020.
> With that input, our plan is to assess rough consensus in the following
> way:
> (a) See if there is consensus for a name identified given the “wouldn’t
> object to being the WG name” preference and the level of “would object”
> feedback
> (b) If there isn’t clear consensus with (a), but a significantly reduced
> set of candidates around which there is enthusiasm, the chairs will share
> the results and request feedback
> (c) If rough consensus appears to be reached through steps (a) – (b),
> revisit the objections to this candidate name, elicit additional objections
> and see if they change the consensus.
> Regards,
>         Yaron and Dick
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> --
> Txauth mailing list