Re: Renaming Object Capabilities to Authorization Capabilities?

I'm not as big a fan of "authorized", because while "authorization"
sounds like something presents, "authorized" sounds like some entity has
received authorization and we're checking so by checking against some
list... eg "dlongley is authorized".  But ocaps/zcaps aren't tied to an
identity, so I think "authorization capabilities" is less likely to
mislead, even if longer.

Joe Andrieu writes:

> +1/2
>
> I like changing it, but I would suggest Authorized Capabilities.
>
> First, it's easier to say.
>
> Second, it states the actual function more clearly: if you have an
> authorized capability, you're authorized. If you have a zCap, you're
> authorized. Or, in the inevitable vernacular, if you have a capability,
> you're authorized.
> "Authorization Capability" reads to me as if the holder has the
> capability to authorize--which is only true if its delegatable and not
> true in the generalized case.
> Bikeshed on...
>
> -j
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018, at 9:40 AM, Darrell O'Donnell wrote:
>> +1
>>
>>
>> *Darrell O'Donnell, P.Eng.*
>> darrell.odonnell@continuumloop.com
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 12:24 PM Brent Zundel
>> <brent.zundel@evernym.com> wrote:>> +1
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018, 10:14 Jordan, John CITZ:EX
>>> <John.Jordan@gov.bc.ca wrote:>>> +1
>>>>
>>>>  > On Nov 3, 2018, at 08:27, Manu Sporny
>>>>  > <msporny@digitalbazaar..com[1]> wrote:>>>  >
>>>>  > Hi all,
>>>>  >
>>>>  > This is related to the OCAP-LD spec that some of us are working
>>>>  > on in>>>  > this community:
>>>>  >
>>>>  > https://w3c-ccg.github.io/ocap-ld/
>>>>  >
>>>>  > Digital Bazaar's engagement with customers over the past several
>>>>  > months>>>  > wrt. the term "Object Capabilities" has resulted in confusion
>>>>  > around>>>  > exactly what an Object Capability is.
>>>>  >
>>>>  > Some history -- the "Object Capabilities" name was originally
>>>>  > picked to>>>  > differentiate from the "Linux Capabilities" stuff, which really
>>>>  > didn't>>>  > have much to do with capabilities (in the authorization sense).
>>>>  > Object>>>  > Capabilities makes more sense when you're talking about
>>>>  > programming>>>  > languages, but we don't really use it in that sense in this
>>>>  > community.>>>  >
>>>>  > I propose we name the specification more appropriately in the
>>>>  > hope that>>>  > the name evokes what we're actually doing with the specification.
>>>>  > The>>>  > technology we're developing in this community specifically has
>>>>  > to do>>>  > with Authorization... capability-based authorization. Thus, I'm
>>>>  > suggesting the spec is renamed to "Authorization Capabilities"...>>>  > shortened to "zCaps" for the cool kids in the community.
>>>>  >
>>>>  > Also, this is a bike shed discussion, so I fully expect it to get
>>>>  > out of>>>  > hand and for us to have to do a poll like we did for the
>>>>  > Verifiable>>>  > Credentials terminology. Please only suggest names that you're
>>>>  > committed>>>  > to using with your customers (or that you would use with non-
>>>>  > technical>>>  > folks). If we get a bunch of +1s with no strong objections, we're>>>  > done... and yes, I know that's wishful thinking. :)
>>>>  >
>>>>  > -- manu
>>>>  >
>>>>  > --
>>>>  > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu
>>>>  > Sporny)>>>  > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>>>  > blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
>>>>  > https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches
>>>>  >
>>>>

Received on Saturday, 3 November 2018 21:23:46 UTC