Subject: [Txauth] WG Name Voting!!!

From: Dick Hardt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 13:37:02 -0700

Hello Everyone

We are now ready to do some dot voting
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-voting>

We have 32 suggestions in the list Nigel managed
<https://nigelhamilton.com/pages/txauth-name-game.html> that did not
conflict with something else and were googlable.
(if your name did not make the list, neither did my XAuth suggestion!)

If you feel strongly a name not in the list to be voted on should be there,
email me privately.

I sorted the list based on shortishness (see below)

Reminder, the expansion is the name of the working group, that will be at
top of this page https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/txauth/about/

*Please goto this page to dot vote:*

https://mindiply.com/products/decido/decisions/znxVEip81xOUjA

*Please don't vote more than once!*

If there is overwhelming support for one name, then we are done. If not,
then I'll cull the list and we will vote again.

/Dick

*Sorting Order*
I made my best guess on how I would pronounce the acronym/backronym, and
counted the syllables, as shortish was one of the selection criteria.

The names are sorted by # syllables, alphabetical order of abbreviation,
then alphabetical order of WG name. The spreadsheet I used is here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N2vZY8xNjyAtvcY1PgVjY6ugxeUVSGoR98r2Nqu968c/edit?usp=sharing

---

From: Dick Hardt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 13:44:48 -0700

Well, so much for all the effort I did in sorting. The voting service
randomizes the entries on each load ...

Here is what is in the spreadsheet for your convenience ...

abbrev pronunciation syllables WG Name
PAuthZ paws 1 Protocol for Authorization
AZARP a-zarp 2 AuthoriZed Access to Resources Protocol
CTAP cee-tap 2 Comprehensive Token Access Protocol
GNAP guh-nap 2 Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol
GranPro gran-pro 2 GRAnt Negotiation Protocol
NIRAD nir-ad 2 Negotiation of Intent Registration and Authority Delegation
TIDEAuth tide-auth 2 Transference via Intent Driven Extension Auth
TIDEAuth tide-auth 2 Trust via Intent Driven Extension Auth
TIDYAuth tidy-auth 2 Transference via Intent Driven Yield Auth
TIDYAuth tidy-auth 2 Trust via Intent Driven Yield Auth
TIEAuth tie-auth 2 Transference via Intent Extension Auth
TIEAuth tie-auth 2 Trust via Intent Extension Auth
AAuthZ a-auth-zee 3 Alternative Authorization Protocol (AAuthZ)
AZARAP az-a-rap 3 AuthoriZation And Resource Access Protocol
CompAuthZ comp-auth-zee 3 Componentized Authorization Protocol
DAZARAP daz-a-rap 3 Delegated AuthoriZation And Resource Access Protocol
DisAuthZ dis-auth-zee 3 Dismembered Authorization Protocol
ReAuthZ re-auth-z 3 Reimagined Authorization Protocol
RefAuthZ ref-auth-z 3 Refactored Authorization Protocol
TIARP t-i-arp 3 Tokenized Identity and Access Resource Protocol
TINOA tin-o-a 3 This Is Not OAuth
TXAuth t-x-auth 3 Testable eXtensible Authorization
TxAuth t-x-auth 3 Transmission of Authority
TXAuth t-x-auth 3 Truly eXtensible Authorization
ZAuthZ x-auth-z 3 eXtensible authoriZation protocol
BeBAuthZ be-be-auth-zee 4 Back-end Based Authorization Protocol
CIOAuth cee-eye-o-auth 4 Client Intent Origin Auth
BYOAuthZ be-y-o-auth-zee 5 Build-Your-Own Authorization Protocol
CPAAP cee-pee-a-a-pee 5 Comprehensive Privileged Authentication
Authorization Protocol
DIYAuthZ dee-i-y-auth-zee 5 Do-It-Yourself Authorization Protocol
IDPAuthZ i-dee-pee-auth-z 5 Intent Driven Protocol for Authorization
TIAAP t-i-a-a-p 5 Tokenized Identity and Access Protocol

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:37 PM Dick Hardt <[email-masked]> wrote:

> If you feel strongly a name not in the list to be voted on should be
> there, email me privately.
>

---

From: Dick Hardt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 13:49:57 -0700

In the poll, somehow I entered ZAuthZ instead of XAuthZ -- A dot for ZAuthZ
is really a dot for XAuthZ

Apologies. Editing the poll creates a new link which seems even more
confusing.

---

From: Steinar Noem <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 06:13:10 +0200

God morgen!
The acronym CTAP is used by the Fido Alliance innit? (Client to
Authenticator Protocol)
It is an incredibly sexy name for a WG, but it might not be the best
choice..

tir. 12. mai 2020 kl. 22:50 skrev Dick Hardt <[email-masked]>:

> In the poll, somehow I entered ZAuthZ instead of XAuthZ -- A dot for
> ZAuthZ is really a dot for XAuthZ
>
>> randomizes the entries on each load ....
>>
>>> Reminder, the expansion is the name of the working group, that will be
>>> at top of this page https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/txauth/about/
>>>
>> --
> Txauth mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>

-- 
Vennlig hilsen

Steinar Noem
Partner Udelt AS
Systemutvikler

| [email-masked] | [email-masked]  | +47 955 21 620 | www.udelt.no |

---

From: Dick Hardt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 14:27:45 -0700

Thanks for pointing that out Steiner. Agreed, CTAP is a conflict.
ᐧ

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:13 PM Steinar Noem <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>>> If there is overwhelming support for one name, then we are done. If
>>>> not, then I'll cull the list and we will vote again.
>>>>
>>>> /Dick
>>>>
>>>> *Sorting Order*
>>>> I made my best guess on how I would pronounce the acronym/backronym,
>>>> and counted the syllables, as shortish was one of the selection criteria.
>>>>
>>>> The names are sorted by # syllables, alphabetical order of
>>>> abbreviation, then alphabetical order of WG name. The spreadsheet I used is
>>>> here:
>>>>
>>>>

---

From: Dick Hardt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 11:21:12 -0700

Hello Everyone

Here are the names that received 10 or more dots in the dot voting:

TxAuth Transmission of Authority
People voted (55)
207 votes

TXAuth Truly eXtensible Authorization
People voted (15)
25 votes

XAuthZ eXtensible authoriZation protocol
People voted (8)
21 votes

GNAP Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol
People voted (15)
20 votes

PAuthZ Protocol for Authorization
People voted (8)
19 votes

TXAuth Testable eXtensible Authorization
People voted (7)
12 votes

For those of you that legitimately voted for Transmission of Authority,
you may be disappointed we will not be using that name.

As I watched the voting, I saw a massive spike in people voting, and in
votes for that selection, and asked the developer of the service to share
the voting logs. On reviewing the logs, it was clear to him and myself that
someone had decided they really wanted "Transmission of Authority" and had
placed a large number of 5 dot votes for that selection in a short period
of time. There were also a few 5 dot votes for the other names that were
expansions for txauth.

This is disappointing, to say the least. I've sat on this for a couple days
pondering how to respond. Our charter is up for discussion at the telechat
next week, so we are somewhat pressed for time for the name of the working
group. Similar to the OAuth WG, we can have a name that is not an expansion
of an abbreviation. Looking over the top names, the word "authorization" is
in 4/5.

My proposal is that we use the existing charter title sans "transactional"
which a majority of the group found misleading. Specifically:

*"Authorization and Delegation"*

*I'll propose "Authorization and Delegation" in a new email and see if we
have consensus on that being the WG name.*

As to the name of the resulting protocol, I don't think we need to select
that at this time. As our work solidifies, we can select one that resonates
with the group as being descriptive of the end result.

A big thanks to everyone that participated in the name brain storming, and
to Nigel for creating the page.

/Dick

---

From: Vijay IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 20:46:53 +0530

Just voted - for all flavors of TxAuth, and a couple of others on the list.

Catching up after almost 4 weeks away from the mailing list. I am unable to
comprehend the amount of time expended in picking a name.

I am curious, is this normal timeline for picking a WG name?  Or is it
because there are two principals who seem to be collaborating on the
surface but have competing interests?

Personally, I am beginning to get a bit disillusioned by the progress made
so far.  Looks like someone has to yield or this WG will be DoA.

Just my very real American $0.02, fwiw.

On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 23:51, Dick Hardt <[email-masked]> wrote:

> This is disappointing, to say the least. I've sat on this for a couple
> days pondering how to respond. Our charter is up for discussion at the
> telechat next week, so we are somewhat pressed for time for the name of the
> working group. Similar to the OAuth WG, we can have a name that is not an
> expansion of an abbreviation. Looking over the top names, the word
> "authorization" is in 4/5.
>