[Txauth] Call for WG name preferences

Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 19 May 2020 20:34 UTC

Return-Path: <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: txauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: txauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 468B43A095F for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 May 2020 13:34:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jZCeql5L_UM9 for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 May 2020 13:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x435.google.com (mail-wr1-x435.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::435]) (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 5560C3A09A5 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 May 2020 13:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x435.google.com with SMTP id j5so890678wrq.2 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 May 2020 13:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id:thread-topic :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=i9WEZJZqPEOLsqnTRyXeWGUPgfLNTQIyG1qniHGzzzc=; b=ovP20erlKvnH+pNoD7AqIAyOgV0qn6ZnVdS5u9UDFWIsnIySBMep6ngibUzV8/KQBz uMgaenn8rxxg3mIP53AIrXPmAZiXvmjvVgzUO/oK2PZBUxZBZJ5fSvDPmkEK8f9x9K50 sVKImrtNtrs/AVtQxh2xw/aBPdSt1SE4O0QCab/vr3x7KglylWn9NF8Fn9NbXI5R4u+x jwngz9o+6VLhdvRB1LLynuO8wMGObSEYsmEGETanQ9f5wP6AVbubVgY9SUL3u3BuDdR3 mNlVXhuNmZKABYvwKTiKD7MWEPfJD44y2A0wgttnXUc5YZWFkgrUb1dwvib8Hch3QaAA H3aA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id :thread-topic:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=i9WEZJZqPEOLsqnTRyXeWGUPgfLNTQIyG1qniHGzzzc=; b=KQXqPaXLUJauEJTWLKET1Z9Na0nddvqUFCOaYZn2J9UAyejSI30TVDOuFqx+EnCqny FYBQVbbSegyGHd2mvEvY3m8I3Q8plzX1eE8I5dHoDby8xUjM/MdelSKJ8UFyTAE+T8g6 +8RDsYqR+FZoYRKIRNaYqMyc8iEDVG/3SNVnHz7MIyFsmPbf7nVStoXAS0pQ5nvR83gY xTb4j3ZOXN2ajd5Hx+El3JwORl8jvp7ZyINPPcDE8BI39xwecmyD6FdqqIAGRJrpRvuR NPRnvLewjXJDyhQuWSe6p6UqtSwhupM9UjPn3wN2zytfmJswxm6KBGLzH7JfzASp65cA xk9A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533GGN9i/HqzebZkeO49JxDHtepLJyMgR2gTxVZi32DCXgWb440/ ACWU1JBx7hpI8WQppS9aC8Y/jKNWHsY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyH46UAp0rPNppY9dIBAGQZy9kkMZUFKK2OItkbwKMUKEha/wa1mb5cGGujE9ReOYrOHQY9Ew==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:806e:: with SMTP id 101mr666697wrk.225.1589920483433; Tue, 19 May 2020 13:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (bzq-79-176-11-75.red.bezeqint.net. []) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t6sm924501wma.4.2020. for <txauth@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 19 May 2020 13:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.37.20051002
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 23:34:41 +0300
From: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "txauth@ietf.org" <txauth@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <9FD428B4-F3C1-426B-9677-611F5FEC85C8@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: Call for WG name preferences
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/sxMA2D3xkluRwJJGWcPOck7HlT8>
Subject: [Txauth] Call for WG name preferences
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: Tue, 19 May 2020 20:34:47 -0000


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

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-txauth/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/GnTUvD191MGMF63Oe3VTqkYi0Wg/
[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/lAe06IW4nihUzyTkWVDcq8rnUa8/