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

Yaron Sheffer <> Thu, 21 May 2020 08:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDD543A0B06 for <>; Thu, 21 May 2020 01:53:43 -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 6NKJu0jPTHui for <>; Thu, 21 May 2020 01:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 202AE3A0B02 for <>; Thu, 21 May 2020 01:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f13so6530007qkh.2 for <>; Thu, 21 May 2020 01:53:41 -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 :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bSw8ef1YLceoE8DlhTBiIpQcbsYnJ8olyS4AIPb/Gxk=; b=cdBLVLr4LCpAQV2jwwCNy3TqCaXha/H2OByEczvlaYnOGIcBp5QbR4dL73ymfrZaoU t8d5dosi1Wl+j2/Gj7gcxwsogahh9rEpUd8PPJu8JcpQGZI7nS/JhD9MrM3j403/78ax M/0hhXDHhPoh6HVC6lMRdMpphGkvIzP+BQTp+fAZjcT7GfOak+cFFeeKA18lGNceK0BU Etqsk53mTtmk6S/WJpIgs6ym+3XkddvQLfnhh6xZX4QFr/NRRqbJl8g/VnEhIITe1Sst Jeci8vihBPRaw1ak5B0RezxilIWSpIH4u2W9rHdsPpS+BLdukg06SUdpTtcX3P+yxeOs 8APA==
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:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bSw8ef1YLceoE8DlhTBiIpQcbsYnJ8olyS4AIPb/Gxk=; b=H7xLfMv9B7oxpvEMaOp1IkedBZEenO0eH2YsXninrLviLtVBW5PIkxBaL5/MpnNjE5 WHtkn015fGz3Gt+nBz6ffnPEL4Ouf/6680TOFU5wqX38bowdt4mxlAnTpEKWF+yaZhWw zEpt1Ev8f3Wr1TBCBQosWslEUnrve6iCWemApiCFCiRTv0emY9xciBWMub/CefY89joB F+eg1MMzG/Aqabf+dAJb28TQyNfGz5xaypkYz9MVsGGfY9Ic1cuw+rMP/GRExccYc2bN 7IjeR/hxJ0mz17/czPyridjSgkdut3uNsQXa52+72DsnKwsGtztO2QTT5N61dhBAD+ga zI9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530YYXfYgjmZaf4picw1Uh4N9LF0DO6GFzZFA4a5EW874Ccs2qvJ k2U579v2l+R5xmuFR5/SSnH0VEjOP9g=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwfzcd+rB7ePCm5uT7NPuB6Hp0vDBfgAD+yRoSi1eHBsw8XKe2kQK434MSqWPbwnXl2a5e+iA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:a12:: with SMTP id i18mr8234790qka.316.1590051219991; Thu, 21 May 2020 01:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id o136sm4269936qke.78.2020. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 21 May 2020 01:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.37.20051002
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 11:53:36 +0300
From: Yaron Sheffer <>
To: "" <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: Call for WG name preferences - process clarification
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: Thu, 21 May 2020 08:53:44 -0000

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