Re: [Txauth] Txauth Digest, Vol 9, Issue 46

[Fabien Imbault <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Yaron, sorry I had missed that. That's great.
So here I go, of course that's a personal view and explanations should be
taken as constructive criticisms.

Wouldn’t Object:

* TxAuth      Transmission of Authority -> seems good to me, even if
Tx still makes me think more of transaction. The easiest to remember
for me.

* XAuthZ    eXtensible authoriZation protocol -> I like that AuthZ
makes the scope clearer. Maybe a bit hard to pronounce and may look
very nerdy to the average user (but I think it's still ok).

* GranPro    GRAnt Negotiation Protocol -> seems pretty clear

Object:

* TXAuth    Testable eXtensible Authorization (doesn't seem production ready)

* TXAuth      Truly eXtensible Authorization (don't know what would be
a not truly extensible auth)

* RefAuthZ    Refactored Authorization Protocol (same idea, refactored
compared to what)

* ReAuthZ    Reimagined Authorization Protocol (same idea)

* AAuthZ    Alternative Authorization Protocol (same idea)

* PAuthZ    Protocol for Authorization (too broad)

* TINOA   This Is Not OAuth (so what?)

* DIYAuthZ    Do-It-Yourself Authorization Protocol (people don't want
DIY auth I think, they want secure stuff)

* IDPAuthZ    Intent Driven Protocol for Authorization (too close to
IDentity Provider)

For the rest, I don't have strong opinions, it's just that they don't
resonate well to me, and I struggle to remember them.

Fabien




>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>
> To: Fabien Imbault <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 14:54:35 +0300
> Subject: Re: [Txauth] Txauth Digest, Vol 9, Issue 44
>
> Hi Fabien,
>
>
>
> Please see my email from yesterday for method and calendar.
>
>
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/sxMA2D3xkluRwJJGWcPOck7HlT8/
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>                 Yaron
>
>
>
> *From: *Txauth <[e-mail]> on behalf of Fabien Imbault <
> [e-mail]>
> *Date: *Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 13:38
> *To: *<[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Txauth] Txauth Digest, Vol 9, Issue 44
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Well, I guess the issue with the poll illustrates quite clearly why we
> need authorization in systems.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure we really need more names right now, the brainstorming
> produced quite a large set of possibilities (which Nigel evaluated based on
> some common requirements), from which we need to choose.
>
> My personal opinion is that we need to keep things simple: find a way to
> decide on a name and start focusing on the specification itself.
>
>
>
> Let's see what co-chairs propose in terms of method and calendar.
>
>
>
> Fabien
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Nigel Hamilton <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 06:20:40 +0100
> Subject: [Txauth] Name Game (contd)
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> It's a bit disappointing that the voting went awry. It's normal to go
> through a few iterations however.
>
>
>
> I personally like WRAC - as it is distinctive and the expanded acronym
> helps to explain what it does. I just want to flag up, however, that there
> are some potential trademark problems with it. If it had been submitted
> prior to the first poll - it would have appeared in the lower list and not
> made the first voting round.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Nige
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Skaife <[e-mail]>
> To: Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 10:50:19 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Txauth] Call for WG name preferences
>
> 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 <[e-mail]>
> 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] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-txauth/
> [2]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/GnTUvD191MGMF63Oe3VTqkYi0Wg/
> [3]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/lAe06IW4nihUzyTkWVDcq8rnUa8/
>
>
> --
> Txauth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>
> To: David Skaife <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 12:57:07 +0300
> Subject: Re: [Txauth] Call for WG name preferences
>
> Maybe, but the proposal makes it clear that the default for new names is
> that we consider everyone to “object” to them unless explicitly told
> otherwise.. So people will understand that the only way for a name to have
> a chance is to propose it early in the game.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>                 Yaron
>
>
>
> *From: *David Skaife <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 12:50
> *To: *Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Txauth] Call for WG name preferences
>
>
>
> 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 <[e-mail]>
> 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] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-txauth/
> [2]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/GnTUvD191MGMF63Oe3VTqkYi0Wg/
> [3]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/lAe06IW4nihUzyTkWVDcq8rnUa8/
> <https://mailarchive..ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/lAe06IW4nihUzyTkWVDcq8rnUa8/>
>
>
> --
> Txauth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>
> Txauth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>
> -- Txauth mailing list [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
> Txauth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>