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,
> 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 Lod
Thanks for the feedback.
> -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
> 2.1 Client types
>
> I'm struggeling with the new terminology of "private" and "public"
> clients. In
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 c
, 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
>
> -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
>
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 lik
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 lik
