Re: [Txauth] WG Name Voting!!!
Dick Hardt <firstname.lastname@example.org> Fri, 15 May 2020 18:21 UTC
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D85A3A0B37 for <email@example.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 11:21:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([18.104.22.168]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1kfUe2G8E9Ix for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Fri, 15 May 2020 11:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com (mail-lj1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF1E13A0B54 for <email@example.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 11:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id b6so3276430ljj.1 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Fri, 15 May 2020 11:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=zOLN5PV7tp+MNjquaz76fLA3DaL+Zp+blv++X1TNyIo=; b=E+Z8uIk12+N2TmZy/omXQ0A8U7TyJB/nFKRiwBn/rccmyHFDH7PV+o8TEee+uyWW0y agwCwTpDX/EQb/gYTMjg26u3DDOUU7O+0qNlKl4Njv7m35yxJk2qZVOoj+/W85Gdg4BZ eXcpBsoXvRyQeM4BKefQYq35VIzhQMNmISI/PXBye5sVrd090Yjn2lafbFCVds8x9gnx 1BL9yFF27658TzjhMBZNlYOyOoAt7HkRNVHfF1CUnHMr5Gpq8ZoB56nM1oEvbtVUwsq2 fvU6hp9cYjYhelCDE5uEMLxQD9v/Q6QUU7G0gYbX9J5UDbABkTXoFncGyxAhXGRifdfV w8WQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=zOLN5PV7tp+MNjquaz76fLA3DaL+Zp+blv++X1TNyIo=; b=slwVy1fgm4znjk+YdWVAUBctOWC2a6TYe0QKNuDLzrocpDxFGfmioK6Ar7HKV5iLoy kLxgsvu2KXVDa+9Z2eo4HyzhuUK24EYq1Xbohb0UBAOPXGe78HFJD0nSWQuMopSbEJOD XoyQ6rbdH7ffAO/svAACDZ3hsIWxVHIweFKYWdY+WoY4Y6eg9uwlkQZQqVbAfD2mYNyl KMcJhs8ZL2f5cWjR3V8jBRoz6osSWA+VAnkcernVKmrTdxRJHRgnJVo7m71Zdr8yXxh3 bRHgTWh4CU+ydXbMBpsJUVpmX66Qic8rgH12mjIQ2u9iOCTNaraQPwwbLt4hESLLKj5E JDqw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533C/gmWj3gE3yC3n3k2osP0nL1ihiyPw9SoVIsQeop9B0X9R+DZ MkKsQ0voJyL2CvDAgFTEED+eDk/fjvtdob+bckcl/aZxuUA=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8097:: with SMTP id i23mr3014470ljg.188.1589566899153; Fri, 15 May 2020 11:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
References: <CAD9ie-v2TC+GFs-OCL2oMpjWmzHPJMKKmKSMxKNMqz1Y51Q5kg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD9ie-tb4Oew88YNfqrgWeH0gD-cn9kL7SKHHbqTekQb3dc8ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD9ie-sd_7S=W-sBrxVkPjrxviEUWKuFf2UaBPFh8LEQHzqr3w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dick Hardt <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 11:21:12 -0700
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005f15cb05a5b3e269"
Subject: Re: [Txauth] WG Name Voting!!!
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/txauth>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 18:21:47 -0000
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 <email@example.com> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 >>> >>