Re: [Txauth] WG name brainstorming - please participate!

[Dick Hardt <[e-mail]>]

Hi Justin

I'm confused why you would suggest that TxAuth stands for transactional
authn as we just did have a discussion that made it clear that there is
more support against "transactional" then there is for it. It seems that
you are not respecting decisions that have been made in the group. I hope
this is not indicative of how you will interact with the group going
forward as it is counter productive.

What would you like your proposal of TxAuth to represent? (I don't think it
can not expand into something. OAuth is unique as it was a strong brand
prior to the work in the IETF, and Tx is known to stand for either
"transmission", or "transaction")

Suggestion: I think that the extensibility of the protocol is a key aspect.
If there is a word that the T (besides transactional) that is descriptive
of the work, then TXAuth could be a great name. T_____ eXtensible
Authorization or something like that.

wrt. your question on providing feedback on other proposals, we are in
brainstorming mode of a name and expansion. Per my email, "We won't be
judging or ranking names at this time"

As to your comment on disqualifying XAuth that it "fails the first required
parameter below pretty badly", I would not consider the xauth program to
control X server to be a "major software project", but I was never a big X
server user, so happy to be told otherwise by anyone on the group that may
be regularly using the xauth program and would find it confusing.

/Dick

On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 7:25 AM Justin Richer <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dick,
>
> Thanks for kicking this off. I’m going to submit that we keep the current
> name of the mailing list:
>
> TxAuth
>
>  - Either “Transactional Authn” or “The neXt Authn” or any number of other
> things. Or just “TxAuth” without an expansion, like the “O” in OAuth today
> doesn’t officially expand into anything (it’s officially the Web
> Authorization Protocol Framework, not “Open Authorization” as it might have
> been at one point). Considering the only push against TxAuth that I’ve
> heard is that some people don’t like “transactional” in the name, I think
> that’s easy enough to work around.
>
> Not only does it have <1M hits on google, most of them point to this
> working group or writings about this working group. It’s a brand we already
> own and control, and we are the ones who can decide what it means.
>
>
>
>
> Are we providing feedback inline for other proposals while we’re at it?
> Because “XAuth” fails the first required parameter below pretty badly:
>
> https://www.x.org/archive/X11R6.8.1/doc/xauth.1.html
>
>
>  — Justin
>
> On May 1, 2020, at 5:08 PM, Dick Hardt <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> We now have our criteria for names, and we can now start the next step in
> our process, brainstorming names!
>
> Here is the criteria again:
>
> Required:
>
>    1. No confusion with another protocol, major software project, or
>    IETF/IRTF WG name
>    2. no existing registered trademarks in related classes
>    3. Less than 1M results in Google
>    4. Descriptive of protocol (this criteria is subjective)
>    5. Not an offensive meaning to a member of the mail list
>
> Desirable:
>
>    1. Straightforward to pronounce
>    2. Easy to spell
>    3. Easy to read
>    4. Shortish
>
> We won't be judging or ranking names at this time -- we are brainstorming
> names that are descriptive of the protocol.
> We are hoping we can get the WG approved in the telechat May 21,
> so ideally we would have r*ough consensus on the name by May 18.*
>
> Let's brainstorm for a week, and then we can stack rank them on our
> objective criteria, and then vote on the top candidates.
>
> I'll start by submitting my favorite:
>
> XAuth - Extensible delegated Authorization and Authentication protocol, or
> just view the X as a placeholder and XAuth is OAuth ++
>
> --
> Txauth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>
>
>