Re: [Txauth] WG Name Voting!!!
Vijay IETF <firstname.lastname@example.org> Tue, 26 May 2020 15:17 UTC
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E913B3A0061 for <email@example.com>; Tue, 26 May 2020 08:17:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([18.104.22.168]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P-0SmA_1n6IK for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Tue, 26 May 2020 08:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd29.google.com (mail-io1-xd29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9048E3A003D for <email@example.com>; Tue, 26 May 2020 08:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd29.google.com with SMTP id r2so12054194ioo.4 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Tue, 26 May 2020 08:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rySmKX8ljX7iQ0WZzOqfIk8iPzmE4in4awaM4rqcG20=; b=mKD9wgSY0p8iSvol2rRXFKC8nv2WXT9amAmujWF7jrVoTwpQpiITGy6s5qf/bthIId cTCAQ+xxNw11ZeqnpC791/3PoPHzVqBVh9jnrPyPG8BSzEDCuSmj9B1/d9HmpE/+vdvf Ow7uD0p6CADPDrkRfUUEMT5G7JV0jcCdkOJqc3lmI7D2MpxpicnHiYV5AOv6iyv5OMAf P/qnA+scCuLWf9BPIH1ISwspgBXNRWUZ2s6mrqkJY7YvOkASDTjnIih5loYuOXt2yArC SAnmCg14IZpXjL2GnKJ6w1yy2pvdyMWNHsoeEKaOkVSuf5muBzV8YoJ/m3v/sM100Ef5 8pOA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rySmKX8ljX7iQ0WZzOqfIk8iPzmE4in4awaM4rqcG20=; b=HrC59z25VHv9QrDbaZvxKPMw6Zv55BffQ1vA5gy72QKDwTwBX6m4VXn2r9f2jXME7D JUN0MwYOxK0XdvcAyDeuu4bkMqJsYOzMmCTubLupx+/Jcrbs9rL5cUDju4TNirF3qH1a Roq+hgEUI/tWRd9Zferh226L12aIoH8J36M0wwl94iGewy1MouvqfXGNEB5igl+sCHoy gpisSsbgHv9PW/FJEAoaT3pxONVjrybdWqmcCmVl5wY0+ttNK4M8N56bC0+7ibEFIjVx FaP8MsxdJuHfWNSqoqQ2MS1klgZm2U3/V3oKRySAtfTd+GZ74GV6wvc5kh9Z6M9zaJNd NEMA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530zcfj8mu/6dBW2NtMPrkk/Mkag2mgJHPOe79cjkBKf4VnPO862 C57SJryr1NhRd0tBUhs8xw2/6aNijJZEY20pztY=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:c848:: with SMTP id r8mr1423087jao.15.1590506224754; Tue, 26 May 2020 08:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
References: <CAD9ie-v2TC+GFs-OCL2oMpjWmzHPJMKKmKSMxKNMqz1Y51Q5kg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD9ie-tb4Oew88YNfqrgWeH0gD-cn9kL7SKHHbqTekQb3dc8ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD9ie-sd_7S=W-sBrxVkPjrxviEUWKuFf2UaBPFh8LEQHzqr3w@mail.gmail.com> <CAD9ie-s_4Cp3c5uFdzFbEgu-ms96bV06mddFzZO4JLP_+qMvLw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vijay IETF <email@example.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 20:46:53 +0530
To: Dick Hardt <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008a275f05a68e96aa"
Subject: Re: [Txauth] WG Name Voting!!!
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/txauth>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 15:17:11 -0000
Just voted - for all flavors of TxAuth, and a couple of others on the list. Catching up after almost 4 weeks away from the mailing list. I am unable to comprehend the amount of time expended in picking a name. I am curious, is this normal timeline for picking a WG name? Or is it because there are two principals who seem to be collaborating on the surface but have competing interests? Personally, I am beginning to get a bit disillusioned by the progress made so far. Looks like someone has to yield or this WG will be DoA. Just my very real American $0.02, fwiw. On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 23:51, Dick Hardt <email@example.com> wrote: > Hello Everyone > > Here are the names that received 10 or more dots in the dot voting: > > TxAuth Transmission of Authority > People voted (55) > 207 votes > > TXAuth Truly eXtensible Authorization > People voted (15) > 25 votes > > XAuthZ eXtensible authoriZation protocol > People voted (8) > 21 votes > > GNAP Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol > People voted (15) > 20 votes > > PAuthZ Protocol for Authorization > People voted (8) > 19 votes > > TXAuth Testable eXtensible Authorization > People voted (7) > 12 votes > > > For those of you that legitimately voted for Transmission of Authority, > you may be disappointed we will not be using that name. > > As I watched the voting, I saw a massive spike in people voting, and in > votes for that selection, and asked the developer of the service to share > the voting logs. On reviewing the logs, it was clear to him and myself that > someone had decided they really wanted "Transmission of Authority" and had > placed a large number of 5 dot votes for that selection in a short period > of time. There were also a few 5 dot votes for the other names that were > expansions for txauth. > > This is disappointing, to say the least. I've sat on this for a couple > days pondering how to respond. Our charter is up for discussion at the > telechat next week, so we are somewhat pressed for time for the name of the > working group. Similar to the OAuth WG, we can have a name that is not an > expansion of an abbreviation. Looking over the top names, the word > "authorization" is in 4/5. > > My proposal is that we use the existing charter title sans "transactional" > which a majority of the group found misleading. Specifically: > > *"Authorization and Delegation"* > > *I'll propose "Authorization and Delegation" in a new email and see if we > have consensus on that being the WG name.* > > > As to the name of the resulting protocol, I don't think we need to select > that at this time. As our work solidifies, we can select one that resonates > with the group as being descriptive of the end result. > > A big thanks to everyone that participated in the name brain storming, and > to Nigel for creating the page. > > /Dick > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:49 PM Dick Hardt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >> In the poll, somehow I entered ZAuthZ instead of XAuthZ -- A dot for >> ZAuthZ is really a dot for XAuthZ >> >> Apologies. Editing the poll creates a new link which seems even more >> confusing. >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:44 PM Dick Hardt <email@example.com> wrote: >> >>> Well, so much for all the effort I did in sorting. The voting service >>> randomizes the entries on each load ... >>> >>> Here is what is in the spreadsheet for your convenience ... >>> >>> abbrev pronunciation syllables WG Name >>> PAuthZ paws 1 Protocol for Authorization >>> AZARP a-zarp 2 AuthoriZed Access to Resources Protocol >>> CTAP cee-tap 2 Comprehensive Token Access Protocol >>> GNAP guh-nap 2 Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol >>> GranPro gran-pro 2 GRAnt Negotiation Protocol >>> NIRAD nir-ad 2 Negotiation of Intent Registration and Authority >>> Delegation >>> TIDEAuth tide-auth 2 Transference via Intent Driven Extension Auth >>> TIDEAuth tide-auth 2 Trust via Intent Driven Extension Auth >>> TIDYAuth tidy-auth 2 Transference via Intent Driven Yield Auth >>> TIDYAuth tidy-auth 2 Trust via Intent Driven Yield Auth >>> TIEAuth tie-auth 2 Transference via Intent Extension Auth >>> TIEAuth tie-auth 2 Trust via Intent Extension Auth >>> AAuthZ a-auth-zee 3 Alternative Authorization Protocol (AAuthZ) >>> AZARAP az-a-rap 3 AuthoriZation And Resource Access Protocol >>> CompAuthZ comp-auth-zee 3 Componentized Authorization Protocol >>> DAZARAP daz-a-rap 3 Delegated AuthoriZation And Resource Access Protocol >>> DisAuthZ dis-auth-zee 3 Dismembered Authorization Protocol >>> ReAuthZ re-auth-z 3 Reimagined Authorization Protocol >>> RefAuthZ ref-auth-z 3 Refactored Authorization Protocol >>> TIARP t-i-arp 3 Tokenized Identity and Access Resource Protocol >>> TINOA tin-o-a 3 This Is Not OAuth >>> TXAuth t-x-auth 3 Testable eXtensible Authorization >>> TxAuth t-x-auth 3 Transmission of Authority >>> TXAuth t-x-auth 3 Truly eXtensible Authorization >>> ZAuthZ x-auth-z 3 eXtensible authoriZation protocol >>> BeBAuthZ be-be-auth-zee 4 Back-end Based Authorization Protocol >>> CIOAuth cee-eye-o-auth 4 Client Intent Origin Auth >>> BYOAuthZ be-y-o-auth-zee 5 Build-Your-Own Authorization Protocol >>> CPAAP cee-pee-a-a-pee 5 Comprehensive Privileged Authentication >>> Authorization Protocol >>> DIYAuthZ dee-i-y-auth-zee 5 Do-It-Yourself Authorization Protocol >>> IDPAuthZ i-dee-pee-auth-z 5 Intent Driven Protocol for Authorization >>> TIAAP t-i-a-a-p 5 Tokenized Identity and Access Protocol >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:37 PM Dick Hardt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Everyone >>>> >>>> We are now ready to do some dot voting >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-voting> >>>> >>>> We have 32 suggestions in the list Nigel managed >>>> <https://nigelhamilton.com/pages/txauth-name-game.html> that did not >>>> conflict with something else and were googlable. >>>> (if your name did not make the list, neither did my XAuth suggestion!) >>>> >>>> If you feel strongly a name not in the list to be voted on should be >>>> there, email me privately. >>>> >>>> I sorted the list based on shortishness (see below) >>>> >>>> Reminder, the expansion is the name of the working group, that will be >>>> at top of this page https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/txauth/about/ >>>> >>>> *Please goto this page to dot vote:* >>>> >>>> https://mindiply.com/products/decido/decisions/znxVEip81xOUjA >>>> >>>> *Please don't vote more than once!* >>>> >>>> If there is overwhelming support for one name, then we are done. If >>>> not, then I'll cull the list and we will vote again. >>>> >>>> /Dick >>>> >>>> *Sorting Order* >>>> I made my best guess on how I would pronounce the acronym/backronym, >>>> and counted the syllables, as shortish was one of the selection criteria. >>>> >>>> The names are sorted by # syllables, alphabetical order of >>>> abbreviation, then alphabetical order of WG name. The spreadsheet I used is >>>> here: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N2vZY8xNjyAtvcY1PgVjY6ugxeUVSGoR98r2Nqu968c/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>> -- > Txauth mailing list > Txauth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth >