Re: [Txauth] unsolicited feedback on naming

Wayne Chang <wyc@fastmail.fm> Thu, 04 June 2020 01:49 UTC

Return-Path: <wyc@fastmail.fm>
X-Original-To: txauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: txauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D82D3A0CB0 for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 18:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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=fastmail.fm header.b=guCevx0t; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=uAQZGekD
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6O1eUprNhVbE for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 18:49:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBE4D3A0CB3 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 18:49:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30BC95C0114 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 21:49:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap2 ([10.202.2.52]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 03 Jun 2020 21:49:36 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm3; bh=ZHMNIvhSQWB8RBRbAlZ1axTNYg9yc7z 6bzU1/yq9Pjc=; b=guCevx0tF2ol4rwuWvmrkUSys66Ed/f1BSzXJtO6Z6e+/+N /nqKLqyfzjfb2rrO5I5UR9eA49sM7ApeNUFHm96hY7et7ErM6oIz0otxsvrfhHZR tJyA6mIVylMwh9+XfWvDI5ymV8TwtMhJTGQxblXpTYNji2AdUraz3T4g+VwDeXfX PDXiYnIQfOA0i9WuvJy+F0s8NDhXYD++wciY6C5c4LRL6dydbas66MXUmxaQNiD1 rOYExy9JPwy09QQgPCL72P78XXHH+v3klrbx7WEHa0hTcx42Sjfwsm/f+Zu6HDfF tD2VnrQ3Stkmeser2ORUyVh+xEnAg/w8nPNie/A==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=ZHMNIv hSQWB8RBRbAlZ1axTNYg9yc7z6bzU1/yq9Pjc=; b=uAQZGekD/OYLxeoMK7uYKh SDvkIY+u1X1rcN1+v/EQ8hUG7fS7kyFiAdpF5gmitKh9c9wWtWo0KEN5rVTVD5UF Gle3qsJZBfq9OaOQNqdnOvCPjvct5lJmo/cMGcX/Qr88MMQaVaJ9YLSi+U12SRGp E5sPajQ6iDD+cYamy7zfIjQyus4GoZWHBphTnB2oGBLt4vBQmceffL2C7jOGlCSt Q4mtCV7xWgcVJtaCF8dnK5TLGg/YMWNLaNwXeIBHNkzXw7iOLC4V0LejMBFhT+Pg iA34F413wLbDniY1d5O5bGfX3WWfnrk0lrhExcnUTKuF7C0FZcwFBO58H2BlTctA ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:MFPYXj4ey4c5nwByuy_IkOxfVs6bIFeXtrt3tblldNvTIIVmu5rQxQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrudegtddggeelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttd ertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfhggrhihnvgcuvehhrghnghdfuceofiihtgesfhgrshht mhgrihhlrdhfmheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepgeejteetkedtueehffefudffvdejue evhedtfefhjeefkeeflefguefgkeevtdevnecuffhomhgrihhnpehivghtfhdrohhrghen ucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpeifhigtse hfrghsthhmrghilhdrfhhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:MFPYXo6wxTs77UPfb7uaGNaUn9TW9dP66gyF-NW7P5CGjVISST2SJA> <xmx:MFPYXqcYFO7lM7sHnw6mhbrQqgGrniYwBv51Ys_yYdiwuBukiuW7pQ> <xmx:MFPYXkL1iz2ZJWTBYtLiwwkbCqAwAPevugamgOOS8lRdUcaeuRktsw> <xmx:MFPYXiZy0-ZwhZxoh1FNNU_st6TIMQlG4z8FIXe9tIDeKU4m136e_g>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 015BDE00C9; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 21:49:35 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-dev0-519-g0f677ba-fm-20200601.001-g0f677ba6
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <3a56f2c4-3011-41c8-ba3b-fd37728f2d71@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4469e170-f313-42c0-a288-41bd8a1fa5d8@www.fastmail.com>
References: <4469e170-f313-42c0-a288-41bd8a1fa5d8@www.fastmail.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 21:49:31 -0400
From: "Wayne Chang" <wyc@fastmail.fm>
To: txauth@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/aprwOcnWFXcrYkZmm30Z4Y8hnTs>
Subject: Re: [Txauth] unsolicited feedback on naming
X-BeenThere: txauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <txauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/txauth>, <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/txauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:txauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth>, <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 01:49:41 -0000

hi, refactoring a few items as NO OBJECT for your readability, ordered by my personal preference:
TxAuth      Transmission of Authority
TXAuth      Truly eXtensible Authorization
TXAuth    Testable eXtensible Authorization
TIEAuth    Trust via Intent Extension Auth

the remainder can be considered OBJECT. reminder that i don't currently have significant stake in the outcome of this naming.

On Thu, May 28, 2020, at 12:16 PM, Wayne Chang wrote:
> hi all, good to meet you. adding $0.02 on naming as an outsider, using 
> good, bad, ugly descriptors:
> 
>         * AAuthZ    Alternative Authorization Protocol (AAuthZ)
> ugly, tough to pronounce and looks like a typo of AuthZ
> 
>         * AZARP    AuthoriZed Access to Resources Protocol
> ugly, initialism doesn't imply function
> 
>         * AZARAP    AuthoriZation And Resource Access Protocol
> ugly, initialism doesn't imply function
> 
>         * BeBAuthZ    Back-end Based Authorization Protocol
> bad, "back-end" is way too broad
> 
>         * BYOAuthZ    Build-Your-Own Authorization Protocol
> bad, "BYO" means "bring your own" to me
> 
>         * CPAAP    Comprehensive Privileged Authentication 
> Authorization Protocol
> ugly, unclear how to pronounce, looks close to "CRAAP"
> 
>         * DAZARAP    Delegated AuthoriZation And Resource Access Protocol
> ugly, initialism doesn't imply function
> 
>         * DIYAuthZ    Do-It-Yourself Authorization Protocol
> bad, DIY implies amateurish and backyard
> 
>         * GNAP    Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol
> bad, initialism doesn't imply function
> 
>         * GranPro    GRAnt Negotiation Protocol
> ugly, .+pro or has hints of proprietary
> 
>         * IDPAuthZ    Intent Driven Protocol for Authorization
> ugly, IdP already means identity provider to lots of folks
> 
>         * NIRAD    Negotiation of Intent Registration and Authority 
> Delegation
> bad, expansion is too wordy and intent registration is unclear to 
> external stakeholders
> 
>         * PAuthZ    Protocol for Authorization
> bad, initialism does not imply function
> 
>         * RefAuthZ    Refactored Authorization Protocol
> bad, "Ref" means reference to lots of folks as in you're trying to 
> define the gold standard
> 
>         * ReAuthZ    Reimagined Authorization Protocol
> ugly, implies that you might authorize _again_
> 
>         * TIAAP    Tokenized Identity and Access Protocol
> ugly, "tokenized" anything has charged meanings to technologists and 
> non-technologists alike
> 
>         * TIDEAuth    Trust via Intent Driven Extension Auth
> bad, i like "TIDEAuth" but Trust via Intent Driven Extension is just 
> semantic soup
> 
>         * TIDYAuth    Trust via Intent Driven Yield Auth
> bad, tidy implies small, driven yield means nothing to me
> 
>         * TIEAuth    Trust via Intent Extension Auth
> good
> 
>         * TINOA   This Is Not OAuth
> ugly
> 
>         * TXAuth    Testable eXtensible Authorization
> good, except "Testable" doesn't sound like the main priority here?
> 
>         * TxAuth      Transmission of Authority
> good
> 
>         * TXAuth      Truly eXtensible Authorization
> good, not sure about "Truly" because we will no doubt encounter limits ourselves
> 
>         * XAuthZ    eXtensible authoriZation protocol
> bad, best expanded form here, but XAuthZ is not aesthetic to me
> 
> is there a reason we didn't call it TXAuth/TxAuth and have it stand for 
> Transaction Authorization? either of those would be my first choice. i 
> understand that the name picking period is over.
> 
> -- 
> Txauth mailing list
> Txauth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>