The Great (Potential) Renaming

[Dan Callahan]

We all love Let's Auth, but I'm wary about using it due to its similarity with Let's Encrypt. Even if they're fine with it, I get the two mixed up when writing and speaking all the time.

Still, it's close to our hearts, so I'll ask the Let's Encrypt people and see if they would be uncomfortable with our use of the name.

In the meantime, the suggestion of "Portier" came up, and generally seems well-liked.

Proposed resolution: If Let's Encrypt is fine with Let's Auth, we use Let's Auth. Otherwise, or if we don't hear back, we use Portier. Any objections?

-Dan

[Stavros Korokithakis]

No objection here, seconded.

Stavros

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Let's Auth" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to letsauth+u...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:letsauth+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to lets...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:lets...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/letsauth/CAKknJ673xQKetW-c4der8VH%3DeEEzLfCcga-12EcPVyDSQikE1A%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/letsauth/CAKknJ673xQKetW-c4der8VH%3DeEEzLfCcga-12EcPVyDSQikE1A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Dan Callahan]

From Josh Aas of Let's Encrypt:

"We very strongly prefer that you not call it Let's Auth. Let's Encrypt
works in the field of authentication (certs are ultimately
authentication) and such a name would likely create confusion."

Long live Portier! ;)

I'll update the GitHub issue.

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Dan Callahan <dan.ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Long live Portier! ;)

Cool!

Shall I rename the GitHub org? It will provide redirects on the repos,
but any external links to e.g. letsauth.github.io have to be updated
by hand.

Also, I'd like to rename ladaemon. I feel "daemon" is a bit too
general, and would prefer something more generic. How about
portier/broker, or portier-broker?

Cheers,

Dirkjan

[David Kitchen]

Portier is a good choice, I like.

On what to call the daemon... how many components do we expect a portier server to run? If it's just the one, call it portier, if it's multiple pieces (front-end for it too) then call it porte.

Dan, I'll redirect the domains I purchased to letsencrypt.

On the same note portier.io is available, I'll grab that because why not. I'll redirect the DNS anywhere anyone wants.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Let's Auth" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to letsauth+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lets...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/letsauth/CAKmKYaDR2UXFk-UAmdrJgwY6KxJge8tfP%2BKiEG-Xm4Bs6Z__YA%40mail.gmail.com.

[onli onli]

On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 8:28:19 AM UTC+2, David Kitchen wrote:

On what to call the daemon... how many components do we expect a portier server to run? If it's just the one, call it portier, if it's multiple pieces (front-end for it too) then call it porte.

Porte would be a great name for that :)

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 9:00 AM, onli onli <onl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Porte would be a great name for that :)

I'm unconvinced... I'd prefer something a little more obvious (i.e.
that requires less context).

Cheers,

Dirkjan

[Dan Callahan]

+1. As long as the substring "portier" appears in the binary name, I'm happy. Let's go with your portier-broker per your suggestion.

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Dan Callahan <dan.ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1. As long as the substring "portier" appears in the binary name, I'm
> happy. Let's go with your portier-broker per your suggestion.

Done.

This has the added advantage to me that we can refer to the role of
broker in as a counterparty to RP's and IdP's in protocol-related
discussions.

Cheers,

Dirkjan