Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Bearer token scheme name - new vote deadline Sat, 2/12

From: Mike Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 23:04:50 +0000

Given that people are clearly voting to change the bearer token scheme name, but that there is also significant discussion asking for "OAuth2" to be part of the name, I'd like to settle the matter by vote on the list.  Please vote for one of the following names:

1.  OAuth2Bearer
2.  Bearer

                                                            Thanks,
                                                            -- Mike

---

From: "Manger, James H" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:13:08 +1100

The previous poll already had these two options, with the non-OAuth-specific name getting 14 votes to 1 vote for an OAuth prefix.

1. Descriptive, non-OAuth-specific scheme names (Bearer, MAC)

...

3. Name prefix (e.g. oauth2_bearer)

I vote for 2 "Bearer".

--

James Manger

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
Sent: Wednesday, 9 February 2011 10:05 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Bearer token scheme name - new vote deadline Sat, 2/12

1.  OAuth2Bearer

2.  Bearer

                                                            Thanks,

                                                            -- Mike

---

From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 16:15:11 -0700

Why are we doing this again??? This was clearly option #3 which got no support.

EHL

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 3:05 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Bearer token scheme name - new vote deadline Sat, 2/12

1.  OAuth2Bearer
2.  Bearer

                                                            Thanks,
                                                            -- Mike

---

From: Mike Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 23:16:32 +0000

Yes, but it also had other options that were "none of the above" relative to this naming issue.  I'd like to obtain an unambiguous outcome on this point by having people vote between two choices.

I personally agree with those that made the case that it is presumptive to claim the generic name "Bearer".  Hence, I will personal vote for #1.

                                                            -- Mike

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Manger, James H
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 3:13 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Bearer token scheme name - new vote deadline Sat, 2/12

I vote for 2 "Bearer".

--
James Manger

1.  OAuth2Bearer
2.  Bearer

                                                            Thanks,
                                                            -- Mike

---

From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 16:36:04 -0700

#2

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 3:17 PM
To: Manger, James H; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Bearer token scheme name - new vote deadline Sat, 2/12

                                                            -- Mike

I vote for 2 "Bearer".

--
James Manger

1.  OAuth2Bearer
2.  Bearer

                                                            Thanks,
                                                            -- Mike

---

From: Michael D Adams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 16:02:09 -0800

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Mike Jones <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Given that people are clearly voting to change the bearer token scheme name,
> but that there is also significant discussion asking for “OAuth2” to be part
> of the name, I’d like to settle the matter by vote on the list.  Please vote
> for one of the following names:
>
> 1.  OAuth2Bearer
>
> 2.  Bearer

#2 Bearer

---

From: Justin Hart <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 16:22:04 -0800

#2
----
Justin Hart
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

On Feb 8, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Mike Jones wrote:

Given that people are clearly voting to change the bearer token scheme name, but that there is also significant discussion asking for “OAuth2” to be part of the name, I’d like to settle the matter by vote on the list.  Please vote for one of the following names:

1.  OAuth2Bearer
2.  Bearer

                                                            Thanks,
                                                            -- Mike

---

From: Phil Hunt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 16:21:47 -0800

#2.

Phil
[email-masked]

On 2011-02-08, at 3:04 PM, Mike Jones wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

---

From: William Mills <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 17:31:22 -0800

#2

1.  OAuth2Bearer
2.  Bearer

                                                            Thanks,
                                                            -- Mike

---

From: "Franklin Tse" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 11:16:17 +0800

#2

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Mike Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, 09 February, 2011 07:04
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Bearer token scheme name - new vote deadline Sat, 2/12

---

From: Anthony Nadalin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 05:16:41 +0000

#1

1.  OAuth2Bearer
2.  Bearer

                                                            Thanks,
                                                            -- Mike

---

From: David Recordon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 22:08:43 -0800

#1

---

From: David Recordon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 22:09:00 -0800

Sorry, read the previous version of this poll. Meant #2 in this one.

---

From: Skylar Woodward <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 15:51:25 +0100

#2

---

From: Brian Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 09:05:22 -0700

#2

---

From: Dick Hardt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 08:23:32 -0800

indifferent :)