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 >
- Re: [Txauth] Txauth Digest, Vol 9, Issue 44 Fabien Imbault
- Re: [Txauth] Txauth Digest, Vol 9, Issue 44 Yaron Sheffer