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

David Skaife <> Thu, 21 May 2020 11:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 982353A0BDF for <>; Thu, 21 May 2020 04:13:11 -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 e_KAun8se1q0 for <>; Thu, 21 May 2020 04:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::631]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F33243A0BD6 for <>; Thu, 21 May 2020 04:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s3so8323226eji.6 for <>; Thu, 21 May 2020 04:13:08 -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=4dBfGXHyzhWAymv4ypbLZHJZKZum+UhAi+Sn7b9K444=; b=OIU2fCQyg8XYnPrxUwiLpb61h97/Tky7vDYV+lA3gA/f3IDv+KQcJWzFB+Jue0leUp A6qMfy3JY0ZsBpp2wS8oxVZdyHCvUf8b28cI9VnX6eQ7qr9TscLnzl0/4FyAQNnbcLjI cGI9Yk6yuXvCQIruOmBDy2bshtLJlv/8ubKXTnKtIeV8vGrZw7E/k7sLLn/RZmrK0epc P0zo7ku/t2j2hWtonTrWMyvtUiqgqafh72HGlEKtJ6mohCUuHTLBH6/hpHUYr3XJ7oHq h3bU5ucRvmNeFmQzRgNQPP1kk7zxbngjgV5hZou1hh7SSCFxlCZ2Mr8qWD3XWovhqaE8 f10w==
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=4dBfGXHyzhWAymv4ypbLZHJZKZum+UhAi+Sn7b9K444=; b=MPJvUWpgDNuak6KKp9IVF33X1A4OzYTN61/cLweu2skN4roGdBEcsMy/yp8gIfrpFK zOBClGHlnr9Xgl/ZWwVQ+2JehCgjqAkQaj1XNSgh/omgNUcARJwpz6dDwZjQRMWsFtyW DF1tyFrCsz/PfSc3MaLoYG3BbkJjl0xJ+0/EcLNscVv8wt8Pg0TeZPM2ze3ja5XJKq2D ICHioQ9AJNPqPfRInw6c+eZqTrgQtfLNg0gwOh5g+YlJ0FnbuBVT/1cY6LSWxfFfEUEl 2q+FO43OvVu19+I1RCmAVM7qxL/fpuwfLumaODJ0CsfCq8S3af4LWecxrPOM08ryncTu sLAg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533X1VbG1iosJbIefBJJE8I6KU36hyBMOC99f4mGVT8GlrzA5eEv b8MfI4quugXOT0Uw9Y9wfzzH9+UEMfLa8dQXl1Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwmygSdwf6SkGLPr5qB9AcsJ3bUCQtHidO8YhkhwLPTMuPYM2ya0eCYvSvvXI/hjR/w7131U4zIvwJKLD61xAg=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:57d6:: with SMTP id u22mr2948114ejr.49.1590059587465; Thu, 21 May 2020 04:13:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: David Skaife <>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 12:12:56 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: Yaron Sheffer <>
Cc: "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e1f53305a6269887"
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 11:13:12 -0000

Hi Yaron,

Sorry to be a pain, but this process clarification opens up the "loophole"
that I previously mentioned. If new names are still permitted during this
stage of the process then any new names submitted shortly before the
deadline will mean people don't have sufficient time to object to them.
Your previous counter to this is now no longer valid:

>> "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."

Many thanks,
David Skaife

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 9:53 AM 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.
> Thanks,
>         Yaron
> On 5/19/20, 23:34, "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