Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue 15, new client registration

I'll switch to confidential/public.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin Richer [mailto:jricher@mitre.org]
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 7:41 AM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Cc: eran@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-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@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-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@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
> 