Re: [Txauth] Txauth Digest, Vol 9, Issue 44

Fabien Imbault <fabien.imbault@gmail.com> Wed, 20 May 2020 10:38 UTC

Return-Path: <fabien.imbault@gmail.com>
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 B4FFD3A07CE for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 May 2020 03:38:07 -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, 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DMTRh3OHSXec for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 May 2020 03:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32f.google.com (mail-ot1-x32f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32f]) (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 8ECD93A07BA for <txauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 May 2020 03:38:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32f.google.com with SMTP id d7so2054816ote.6 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 May 2020 03:38:03 -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=T3QiwU6H3+Gw8TsNBeLJimqthBmGdE1N5NH80huRF4w=; b=i/wdtK6rXrufLkDW37il6FUTMJxXRUUMKN3Y47QBcfnk1RjS2kJrTPpnM9EGswjcVq NMS3EqBoWXDOrEeNWp/IBebHFJC0M/wFwcXVLHUGsYsAcT7ZUtyO8RIO90gU4a0CgeC9 HR787qecEjYSM7pCIv1cZDnGxjtsIQXfVw9/KcFPq9R1Ggf3ZHYxah2yPMWlnb2GLJ1c QxNI+vqAUTg5rJAC00CuXwOdQLoG93cxlZJFRMCKlg52OoVGGrKbwlA5GM/1fBoB+nYs P3G0aBV6x5kt+BveSEfvsIWIEvy7kMv12NHwhjQMffBzM/pekHB9UDIskxRViZL+hfnq gA2Q==
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=T3QiwU6H3+Gw8TsNBeLJimqthBmGdE1N5NH80huRF4w=; b=M3frBVkiW1dXb9DcLAw/2G5If7h8Xum92WR80VPaFZS2gO70IMtBXZtnOKGSbq7kwz zU05Texf3pkHIcRj2AOyZNono0oY0X5B0koFl0xF1k/kctXaS/PjyzSnwB1LGQsa2/xJ HWjDHsJkewiOW6Df8q1lDLvP3LdRjseazbkrgUtz8hnKLVy6sK2Cez+SqLJvqDicl9J9 Ow2uCw+Ea8DNxJdIIDrA4c7S9IE3Yw6yW/faUQjE0h/XhO51tdekDQyLTuJyde1/GBc0 ncwdk1fjB8xwHO6FOzMRWGMnIl3ypgP5H58s60IE7arbosfyZkHMdroD2oOH6SPqAJjG aEUQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530M0ccduNbRqbjPkXl49oh6Cq3f7mz7Vzbqg0NSNLO8waj/svCJ HKtQZ4hyybftdiLJxZSYuevjs3h9Dm0Cm6f7CliWDoXXpp8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwamROCQX9/6BfvardCmPxY1pG6xppMpC5iySJZIJZ5Mkxbvr8ghcwWCbCBD2FO/ExbkjDv0ILCCGALwZA6PhE=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6282:: with SMTP id x2mr2821425otk.52.1589971082482; Wed, 20 May 2020 03:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <mailman.522.1589968635.8861.txauth@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.522.1589968635.8861.txauth@ietf.org>
From: Fabien Imbault <fabien.imbault@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 12:37:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CAM8feuT5jBZwaUJpSBrQ8hRUD7qaRXR3J+baebf-3i3Rzk0VTw@mail.gmail.com>
To: txauth@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009318e405a611fdbd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/uELuaOc3XJI5YIJQ43HogHeDuIc>
Subject: Re: [Txauth] Txauth Digest, Vol 9, Issue 44
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: Wed, 20 May 2020 10:38:08 -0000

Hi,

Well, I guess the issue with the poll illustrates quite clearly why we need
authorization in systems.

I'm not sure we really need more names right now, the brainstorming
produced quite a large set of possibilities (which Nigel evaluated based on
some common requirements), from which we need to choose.
My personal opinion is that we need to keep things simple: find a way to
decide on a name and start focusing on the specification itself.

Let's see what co-chairs propose in terms of method and calendar.

Fabien


>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Nigel Hamilton <nige@123.do>
> To: txauth@ietf.org
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 06:20:40 +0100
> Subject: [Txauth] Name Game (contd)
> Hi,
>
> It's a bit disappointing that the voting went awry. It's normal to go
> through a few iterations however.
>
> I personally like WRAC - as it is distinctive and the expanded acronym
> helps to explain what it does. I just want to flag up, however, that there
> are some potential trademark problems with it. If it had been submitted
> prior to the first poll - it would have appeared in the lower list and not
> made the first voting round.
>
> Cheers
>
> Nige
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Skaife <blue.ringed.octopus.guy@gmail.com>
> To: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
> Cc: "txauth@ietf.org" <txauth@ietf.org>
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 10:50:19 +0100
> 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 <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> 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 .
>>
>> Thanks,
>>         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.
>>
>> Regards,
>>         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/
>>
>>
>> --
>> Txauth mailing list
>> Txauth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
> To: David Skaife <blue.ringed.octopus.guy@gmail.com>
> Cc: "txauth@ietf.org" <txauth@ietf.org>
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 12:57:07 +0300
> Subject: Re: [Txauth] Call for WG name preferences
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>                 Yaron
>
>
>
> *From: *David Skaife <blue.ringed.octopus.guy@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 12:50
> *To: *Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *"txauth@ietf.org" <txauth@ietf.org>
> *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 <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> 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 .
>
> Thanks,
>         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.
>
> Regards,
>         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/
>
>
> --
> Txauth mailing list
> Txauth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>
> Txauth mailing list
> Txauth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>