Re: [Txauth] Call for WG name preferences

Yaron Sheffer <> Tue, 19 May 2020 21:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C597D3A0BFB for <>; Tue, 19 May 2020 14:12:10 -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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=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 ZMLraQOlTU2F for <>; Tue, 19 May 2020 14:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF53B3A0AB1 for <>; Tue, 19 May 2020 14:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id t8so1595981wmi.0 for <>; Tue, 19 May 2020 14:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id:thread-topic:references :in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=B4jr6ePDivXyiDVDyJs/gOLddiUZoyNgwU/nueH1RTI=; b=L0zLYaOCBjekg/TcOuO4p54aLIxLfy//YgGp2KXe35vi6t8Pk++NAzHaaHSW8Y6UCs iXIUstiJYSpqTu2dz5V8E+p8VykFSoR9JtFPix2AZWRpvdnOm9A3LSh0rddKc7dXo15i vRQI6GPX3T4sNnHznAeM1TtvECOFT2x2lZtqNYayJVSD/oKZMSR3hVV/gYVU9C7Tgss1 fQnsRx4rzxyiEQcIxfqw5/93NfR1TFMT7NzFl7TXLyI48gfNGbCOus8HfJja8RPUluD+ QFaece0Vdk8jjMGcSnZ8z+Bp6hw4Xtdr5U1Z+91lXQJOTF14fLnD2d7cmCiSlkV0LbpG R8Zg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id :thread-topic:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=B4jr6ePDivXyiDVDyJs/gOLddiUZoyNgwU/nueH1RTI=; b=Qswr1mOvmcOr2AUjI5q6Gz0s5+mllvFdj7iaAYVbGne8IErx+Um9ldmbLpzZ4LGAeC zOay1jO0U7MGnxx1fF30HLK1uMkCPbH+KhywUMu9/tpby+3EfQwE61A9/OolCU94w25Y pS8nl3l+p5CA++8nsIDXyfCXs9LlmeHhWtMCMzEF36TE+7e9+7nX68PwGmLdfsUVF548 PrAbBFpqcFCZzPZ0tg7ynNH8hF6VeO+phsrks4oiJzgpUjlV5BdMDwBoob6cvW8DDRa+ 4RmjvWOlUTIwhow95RPBv8g1ZTR1arYRfNKgKAIVI9qnyasZpJ+XLyjCbPjtDTCQIqHW fhXA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532NvUO+kyvbaLa4BZ/V26jqKg2DxwJ94cKNP+rExHFKBomroiEb 4yLTxJD8DN3jByBQ3iGEZHc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyOTZOjAqQ0Jm987Jb0TXlYuVosRSykwh6HiNzqzixSjpD4P8CaJq7FRYyXk+6Y8tzRZd6pnQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:3585:: with SMTP id c127mr1313116wma.34.1589922726198; Tue, 19 May 2020 14:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id v19sm576710wml.43.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 19 May 2020 14:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.37.20051002
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 00:12:04 +0300
From: Yaron Sheffer <>
To: Mike Jones <>, "" <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: Call for WG name preferences
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Txauth] Call for WG name preferences
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 21:12:11 -0000

Hi Mike,

It wasn't added to the previous poll because it came in after the deadline. Everyone is free to propose new names during this poll, so your proposal is also on the table now. However, can you please provide a *single* preferred expansion of the acronym.


On 5/20/20, 00:00, "Mike Jones" <> wrote:

    Yaron, it frustrates me that Brian's suggestion has been omitted from the list again:

    	WRAC, pronounced "rack", that expands to Web Resource Authorization Concord (or Compact or Convention) or Collaboration

    It came in before Dick's poll and I asked for it to be added, or at least added to the second round.  Can you please add this to the list and resend, Yaron?

    				-- Mike

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Txauth <> On Behalf Of Yaron Sheffer
    Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 1:35 PM
    Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Txauth] Call for WG name preferences


    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 .

    	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.

    	Yaron and Dick


    Txauth mailing list