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

[Justin Richer <[e-mail]>]

While I’m also a fan of TxAuth on its own without an expansion, I was also thinking that it could be used to mean “Transmission of Authority”.

Because that’s what delegation is — it’s a transmission of one party’s authority to another party. And fundamentally, delegation is what this protocol is trying to solve. This also sidesteps whether this is an authorization or authentication protocol. At its core, OAuth is neither, and I think that this is true here as well. We can transmit authority in multiple ways with a single protocol.

 — Justin

> On May 3, 2020, at 2:28 AM, retnikt . <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hello
> I am new here, you don't know me. But I would like to say that I think "neXt Authn" is a terrible name. It's too forced, just to use the letter X because it's 'cool'. And +1 to TxAuth alone
> retnikt
> 
> On Sat, 2 May 2020 at 15:26, Justin Richer <[e-mail] <mailto:[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 <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] <mailto:[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:
>> No confusion with another protocol, major software project, or IETF/IRTF WG name
>> no existing registered trademarks in related classes
>> Less than 1M results in Google
>> Descriptive of protocol (this criteria is subjective)
>> Not an offensive meaning to a member of the mail list
>> Desirable:
>> Straightforward to pronounce
>> Easy to spell
>> Easy to read
>> 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 rough 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] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth>
> 
> -- 
> Txauth mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth>