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

Would "protected" and "open" work? Protected clients have protected credentials, while open clients don't. 

Huilan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@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-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