I'll switch to confidential/public. EHL
> -----Original Message----- > From: Justin Richer [mailto:jric...@mitre.org] > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 7:41 AM > To: Eran Hammer-Lahav > Cc: e...@sled.com; Torsten Lodderstedt; OAuth WG > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue 15, new client registration > > I would avoid using the term "open" here as it has other deep-seated > meanings in the software world, particularly with regard to Open Source and > Open Standard stuff. FWIW, I think "confidential/public" or "private/public" > are serviceable. > > -- Justin > > On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 02:45 -0400, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > > How about confidential/open? > > > > EHL > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On > > > Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav > > > Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 2:12 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 > _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
