Re: [Txauth] WG Name Voting!!!

[Vijay IETF <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>