Would "protected" and "open" work? Protected clients have protected credentials, while open clients don't.
Huilan > -----Original Message----- > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eran > Hammer-Lahav > Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 5:12 PM > To: Torsten Lodderstedt; OAuth WG > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue 15, new client registration > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > > Of Torsten Lodderstedt > > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 1:59 PM > > To: OAuth WG > > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue 15, new client registration > > > > 2.1 Client types > > > > I'm struggeling with the new terminology of "private" and "public" > > clients. In my perception, the text just distinguishes clients which can be > > authenticated and such which cannot. This is fine but I consider the wording > > misleading. I would suggest to change it to something like trusted/untrusted > > or authenticated/unauthenticated or Verifiable/Forgeable. > > I'm open to changing the names. > > I don't like trusted/untrusted because OAuth does not define trust. The > authenticated/unauthenticated pair is also not ideal because the terms > describe the > outcome, not the nature of the client. As for verifiable/forgeable, I think > these terms > are too complicated for a casual reader. > > My intention with public/private is to identify the nature of the client > credentials. So a > more verbose version would be 'public credentials/private credentials'. This > also > works with 'code' instead of 'credentials'. > > It's clear from the past year of discussions that we need terminology to > describe these > two types. > > Any other suggestions? > > EHL > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
