Re: [Txauth] Call for WG name preferences

Yaron Sheffer <> Wed, 20 May 2020 09:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F08D83A064A for <>; Wed, 20 May 2020 02:57:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, 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 fTMuTaUfIfpZ for <>; Wed, 20 May 2020 02:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 029813A0542 for <>; Wed, 20 May 2020 02:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u188so2217948wmu.1 for <>; Wed, 20 May 2020 02:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :references:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=yKxfddJtWxHqW3t3lk5gTkWoLawSgcx8Sk170/4vRGU=; b=kpsxEQw41GHO2B3sQp64RfKvFanFDgVrtqOG2xKqIxqirmt+Nxj1iNjA8ItnGwqD8L sgzm1PeyVflKFb7+izVgN9bPoG+dQ39qkYCEcQz2bFS66rxL0mYQWgWuCV9H7WEk7IuX XMdAWUVwQNNCZPy449KFTa5eKJoAHjC4pTiwrg5tXeTcjWHJa1yEhH/EuGtJ2lBhw1cE wdPli0e36tDaDxoXekcI9AjTRn6/RwqQfx+gYIVl2s2n05/e9Co/eKczS16bgAqMRnIx BZ13dvT5gwy+9iuPq50EheIkrN6GAL3Czst2FMwLwnAVfC5DVgTA9hrjozFrvqMSQJ6D bwhg==
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:cc:message-id :thread-topic:references:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=yKxfddJtWxHqW3t3lk5gTkWoLawSgcx8Sk170/4vRGU=; b=T16+b06E1d5N0HVunD2HXirUpGXwn9dq6BhBk7zoLwhfVIOJQEEEQUZW0enF/igq/8 DXeKLVbXwnrnkd5bj5Qwcr/EUZI8Wt5OSuf1FV/b2W7tryHcexRHItW9zAfOzVXwQBCn NlG5gTLz8UQ2f6jzUU6l/bPm3lx0ny8CBujDP6Dtx8YcADmV1adKDt2hi2bun2tEHCKX u7SpoSH3rugH++GwJUe4ST+hqVtP7BLU4GgcQhxEeSJ1K2uYAKwOopoBWj0mvLCc73Kt iLKQCX3ws+fWfgVj2Gmxkxybpy1YbiPmRI8gFYQ33RqMTy0/43TDfS68L800A/Sl7xKl 3c6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533BTdjoujG0Xm1RohUlGl8xWtS34FWDQJZR+WW/x6OKM9ipvOSw tz7j2BUW7dTPCwPsMu8IC/Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyvOctDImseLu41l4V2Q2OEopbS4+vGJ8ZhGeleg5hEnsk7HNI0AtuuS3tpyBxTWoFIl3/6Nw==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:2302:: with SMTP id j2mr3865651wmj.18.1589968629478; Wed, 20 May 2020 02:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id r3sm2450329wmh.48.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 May 2020 02:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.37.20051002
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 12:57:07 +0300
From: Yaron Sheffer <>
To: David Skaife <>
CC: "" <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [Txauth] Call for WG name preferences
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3672824228_2073646370"
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: Wed, 20 May 2020 09:57:14 -0000

Maybe, but the proposal makes it clear that the default for new names is that we consider everyone to “object” to them unless explicitly told otherwise. So people will understand that the only way for a name to have a chance is to propose it early in the game. 





From: David Skaife <>
Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 12:50
To: Yaron Sheffer <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Txauth] Call for WG name preferences


Hi Yaron,


I think overall the proposed approach is sensible, however, I'm not sure it's a good idea to allow new names to be suggested at the same time as when people are stating which names they would and wouldn't object to. It's going to get very chaotic if new names are being suggested at the same time as this consensus check. Also, what happens if someone suggests a new name a few hours before the deadline giving very little time for people to confirm whether they object to it or not?

Would it not be more sensible to draw a line under new name suggestions before we then state our preferences?

Many thanks,

David Skaife


On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 9:34 PM Yaron Sheffer <> wrote:


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