[Txauth] Call for WG name preferences - process clarification

Fabien Imbault <fabien.imbault@gmail.com> Wed, 03 June 2020 11:57 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 68CFF3A106E for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 04:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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] 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 FjuwK6X6_Q_j for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 04:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2e.google.com (mail-io1-xd2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2e]) (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 4BBC83A106D for <txauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 04:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2e.google.com with SMTP id h4so1868513iob.10 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 04:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=IeIYv8eY20wUUpgKmQIuIjCIsER26BluxdAM8SmQC2E=; b=mlJR2eoV642I3poNQw5AcJK1cjSjWse7+STaOOj1TJQtSAgXKSnfn8iafIFcGQJvkh V7+eqecmmjD1NrMQitKQk/CSUpQhCjA8lD4qoEdE0B/lDO+0NMOJx5ZAkfffLmI5XMLQ kKq3P8iKTKG61yDCGeKRlE0riFP3gOUWcdDt/nQ2xvv/fY2n+wL2a70peKtSHgzrLqLv D1oIg93rwXDrXDGingAAitYjulvNWh6ZQLvcb42sn2BCR4lOdubhgBT3eBfpZIoI5LtN tOIReesDe2DzXXBB3+oGMnG5W63OFX9OKO0tYRTddakSbvuq5y6f1LHfJfMjQgIAeYuy r5iw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=IeIYv8eY20wUUpgKmQIuIjCIsER26BluxdAM8SmQC2E=; b=BDZuzvCg9HRs/Z5cHQ7y+KPPrlQ1X/zYcUhMBw8iDS52o9zrPrAmdkWGr4mQr+6+UD HHr7VMgZ6MPhJ2/6NKHlcCSca163jPmc6prg7K8uYsPZJCvL2ulFD1Rpl5jk9GQlTOVF wQ/AbdvNAxWYNN8xWiMVBjnlzL8HXPqVmSbcSeiXcVCjZ3sTXWbu2QAumkw3/CwGLr// TZu4GfTT3jnvC8fqm9LIm+L16v+PrVPAZWsuD1ZUss2Lt8H69jrbI4aufwdPhMI5aod0 GCjUjgr16KRJy0apWOYbWGT8ATfZqYeSKCRtQdFK+3YX9OLF02gSlZcI7lsVoBd74i4k 47Yw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532SjSwMAAurHmAQTzZiWl9CPn698zFW9auyqzBLwAEVlWCJoRD8 nk8ULlVQdnhI4gjT8r9SbQSDH/iKbvLitrW0DnfXI5My4jg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwgZGDQ+KMdtEy2toYDapQHESV1haiC4KFRfjhWMcUrgwZeVUya/yUvfwnsq/+LqR3frXcd853n5fyePHHMS7U=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:1a08:: with SMTP id 8mr28082213jai.124.1591185451239; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 04:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Fabien Imbault <fabien.imbault@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:57:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CAM8feuRDwqaTAzj-zLrjyZjgSpnRkAHyTs_Jx4AHu0MLAc7VUQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: txauth@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000097d0aa05a72cbb8a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/zFC5XnonULGCk0nHZ3uzsB3nMIE>
Subject: [Txauth] Call for WG name preferences - process clarification
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, 03 Jun 2020 11:57:33 -0000

Dear all,

A quick personal feedback on the "TxAuth - Transmission of Authority",
following Dick's comment.

I previously agreed that transaction may be incorrectly understood in an IT
context, due to its widespread use in database engineering.

I however disagree with the interpretation that "transmission" would mean
that the AS would be passing the authority to issue tokens to the
client, except maybe if the token itself allows for delegation (but that's
a really uncommon case, since JWT doesn't allow that, so I don't think
people would even think of it).
Since I'm not the creator of the acronym, I believe it simply means you're
passing to the client the authority borne by the token, so that the client
can make a call on behalf of the user. I don't see where there could be
ambiguity and it does fit pretty well with the scope of work.

One drawback is whether users would actually remember tx means transmission
(instead of transaction), which seems perhaps a bit far stretched and
results from our previous internal discussions.

As far as I'm concerned, I still think it's one of the best available
proposition (alongside GATAR which came after my "would object"/"wouldn't
object" comments).

What are the next steps after today's deadline ?

Fabien