Re: Renaming Object Capabilities to Authorization Capabilities?

The security model known as "Capabilities" already implies authorization.
So could we consider just the one word, with no redundant adjective?

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 10:49 AM Adam Lake <alake@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> Joe,
>
> I think I get your point but don't the capabilities exist prior to be
> used? That is, they are Authorization Capabilities until they are used to
> delegate, or authorize, a capability?
>
> I agree that Authorized Capabilities flows off the tongue a bit easier
> than Authorization Capabilities.
>
> Adam
>
> On 11/3/2018 2:10 PM, Joe Andrieu wrote:
>
> +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
> <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> 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
> >
>
>
> --
> Joe Andrieu, PMP
>                    joe@legreq.com
> LEGENDARY REQUIREMENTS
>    +1(805)705-8651
> Do what matters.
>                  http://legreq.com <http://www.legendaryrequirements.com>
>
>
>
> --
> Adam Lake
> Director, Business Development
> Digital Bazaar
> Veres.io
> 540-285-0083
>
>