Re: [Txauth] Call for WG name preferences - process clarification

Yaron Sheffer <> Fri, 22 May 2020 10:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E938B3A0ABA for <>; Fri, 22 May 2020 03:32:20 -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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=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 ixSrzryVVEDn for <>; Fri, 22 May 2020 03:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::733]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CC3F3A0AC1 for <>; Fri, 22 May 2020 03:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id z80so10250365qka.0 for <>; Fri, 22 May 2020 03:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id:thread-topic:references :in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nSEHHeuI0RdcZrqez23wPmrjlSrRpDhyIJ+5mTGnlhA=; b=Ootp+CqaeuMi/P/8U7xcQrfuPfLlWIX/p/FEIXvSH/W2UNeXrQXY7FbRbC0GqHvaND qCzAz0RuZar3yGgZER5d3uaAdnkDJPVZAAGNR8zjuMNKm+L5Qstljyda0cRkgXGXh/Ue w1+A8WGB5hOZ1sNB9WZ0erS6IjZ45t7wDrfH8B/hTlDq3B1MOiwrYRsR18t0caM+YX+g JzavMEIPJwQ1ad4scaMRQoJ4JFRcpgAsBzO0VXdAEJRp3KWOZD2viFRhMdktT/70ZymG KFdVZUt0R9jbwt9mWW1vNZA+ecrB6l8w5x4EPEcITYWlSuqYyIyOAXqT7e3Uqwl1RtNj mwZA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id :thread-topic:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=nSEHHeuI0RdcZrqez23wPmrjlSrRpDhyIJ+5mTGnlhA=; b=B79MWss4F/EY1k4nwqWDgDSA52IykXA2IV7ynUUj2gsI3yPdIjfKRKe+4l2e1ajCSV UMbUfyeWjgx1M28Er1dUJDK+kROWgp3JS00ZdAbu2KGUxPeIog1sYDoxYKNJTmkfBszY qEA8bx8ru1Wx/HyoBdBEyRrhJ3Q8XZ+QOoZaH8awNtEl5BtDL4djOMA2DsGnFYlfbJcN tV4eYroqRC6PLXhin0536pVLvaKlmZnQBExFI8xSp4gyy3qSI2IfPeiUflbfP1ASeTEY bNxW9wjGxPq5N95ghT/nh0WLrzWjAPW1VykBJe/NgV7Vv9fuqBEdaC9lxGtOL4rsHAkf aFqg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530jB0OA03UEDiak8VwL2P7dqdNK9E3YPzce90G+dy9jrRC6BsSH AdHBo9NCXeuJWXwqbbQGjAgGTEbs5gE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJys1Td/dVjvaIVr3R5ziW4FYEz+PmS48qoxQylYduYgikVv4ZRs4MjySWsuEWLk45bKQpLFLA==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:506:: with SMTP id 6mr13693275qkf.159.1590143535910; Fri, 22 May 2020 03:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id k57sm7588089qta.20.2020. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 22 May 2020 03:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.37.20051002
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 13:32:12 +0300
From: Yaron Sheffer <>
To: "" <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: Call for WG name preferences - process clarification
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Txauth] Call for WG name preferences - process clarification
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 10:32:22 -0000

Thank you David for pointing out the loophole in my previous mail. As a result, we have decided to limit the time when new names may be proposed. If you have new name ideas, please make sure to share them until 0800 UTC, Tuesday, May 26.

All others, if you want to make sure you are commenting on the full name list, please hold off until after Monday.

Apologies for the process confusion, we are building it as we go.


On 5/21/20, 11:53, "Yaron Sheffer" <> wrote:

    Thank you to those who contributed early replies!

    As a refinement/clarification to the process below: we are now focusing on discussion and making sure there are no strong objections, rather than voting on people's favorite name.

    With that in mind, we strongly encourage people to attach an explanation to each name they object to. Therefore for names that are on neither of your lists ("wouldn't object to" and "object to"), our default assumption is that you would NOT object to them.

    With the process now finalized, please take a few minutes and provide us with your name lists. As a reminder, the deadline is 0800 UTC June 4, 2020.


    On 5/19/20, 23:34, "Yaron Sheffer" <> wrote:


        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 .

        	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.

        	Yaron and Dick