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

Dick Hardt <> Wed, 03 June 2020 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87FAC3A0D81 for <>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 08:48:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 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_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=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 dqng3iDU1fU1 for <>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 08:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 271A13A0D9D for <>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 08:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id z9so3323670ljh.13 for <>; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 08:48:52 -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=ZiTYkP/hvkywB4XpD1LgRal7cYmIbukjtfB27Z+ET20=; b=TRn3/cPlUBUWPQV8PLymfAq1oDsLCO3v/0ghdqRZs91AC+PhlR62QwyR47fn13IdfV nophl+XUV3p75VbQ3f1fmGI0KhteFfQi4PMsnpOPTaCk+gB7skJ76nyFGCIDW0UQNBR0 DUKXqnPZzTYmPAKjbzRI4KyxzJtz38I1HSjioz8VJ75X69UxEZsfY28H7+VIAg0R/QDg kdg1IK9mssPnAws6an1gSTMfDsin/0TVckbNAmi6YYu8TrThgtbhRhUnxbS09A6f533l YxjB7cMxldRvQldzgb9ilyVb31eDlNbuQvRpbyIZhbbJggcVFZcR1oZVXJAUCgqJDNou bJUA==
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=ZiTYkP/hvkywB4XpD1LgRal7cYmIbukjtfB27Z+ET20=; b=iGg0KPWjOn5C8tsKeRZw5INMEXXpnZI/kPrDkvl/AQnPtWNyUhE325oFSNS7/9kLJF rsuQihleKauSi5jYmAZdkG1fTssxJ7VgPmopRuwClRBTYdi8sRHQs9BN/xevveM0e8H/ 3f9UHho9/Y4HXA0ZlOMLDQllfh+RA6IqMd1PPZonUDfPjKNF2jPwoMZ2z/sac32hWjJP B2J7BzfWafL1bPlg/Rtx/PNG1n4/VMSnwqUAeHtCQ9jjsDLrxXQ/4GCbwOOLGbK6JjDt TYFu6wG754S0Xpgp5ysRHNN8z9wwDz5kMhXhofYtNAHphD5wiINsBBC/47Qo8AFdddAp 6D9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ybR0MkEokXLxK7J5d2WXDOtJTD/Z8Srmx3D3h7fqiwD+dFNHW UpUeP756Fm5HfAyGXDZdIfnmFJJ70lyExuREyC4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzIWftZK3guos3hJFhJjmNSAF5XKqmNjgoFJzE/QmAGIQ1VSwgl6swEr0rz1Bh+pdV6Hlu3jD/2nXXUV1G2p90=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:7e0a:: with SMTP id z10mr2353609ljc.314.1591199330032; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 08:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Dick Hardt <>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 08:48:23 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Fabien Imbault <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d5607a05a72ff6d4"
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: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 15:48:59 -0000

Hi Fabien

My concern was not with the word "transmission", but with the word
"authority". Per your statement:

" ... except maybe if the token itself allows for delegation (but that's a
really uncommon case, since JWT doesn't allow that, so I don't think people
would even think of it). "

That is the confusion I am concerned about. Someone NOT familiar with what
it does may easily think that the "token allows for delegation" is the
purpose of the protocol as authority is commonly used as a reference to the
entity that can issue assertions, not use assertions.


On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:57 AM Fabien Imbault <>

> Dear all,
> A quick personal feedback on the "TxAuth - Transmission of Authority",
> following Dick's comment.
> I previously agreed that transaction may be incorrectly understood in an
> IT context, due to its widespread use in database engineering.
> I however disagree with the interpretation that "transmission" would mean
> that the AS would be passing the authority to issue tokens to the
> client, except maybe if the token itself allows for delegation (but that's
> a really uncommon case, since JWT doesn't allow that, so I don't think
> people would even think of it).
> Since I'm not the creator of the acronym, I believe it simply means you're
> passing to the client the authority borne by the token, so that the client
> can make a call on behalf of the user. I don't see where there could be
> ambiguity and it does fit pretty well with the scope of work..
> One drawback is whether users would actually remember tx means
> transmission (instead of transaction), which seems perhaps a bit far
> stretched and results from our previous internal discussions.
> As far as I'm concerned, I still think it's one of the best available
> proposition (alongside GATAR which came after my "would object"/"wouldn't
> object" comments).
> What are the next steps after today's deadline ?
> Fabien
> --
> Txauth mailing list