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

[Skylar Woodward <[e-mail]>]

Looks like Torsten already has capture my suggestion which is also what the Kiva documentation uses… Verifiable/Forgeable identity.  It's precise and avoids making a statement about trust, etc.

But only developers need such simple one-word classifications.  For end users (e.g., people w/ accounts who approve access for an app) we're be providing much more verbose explanations. For example. "This application's identity has ben verified… still (caution, caution, caution)"  or  "This application's identity cannot be verified. Only approve this application if you absolutely trust the application or link that sent you this page…"

App users can't discern the significance of public vs. private credentials.

To me, public credentials are not credentials at all. Yet another term to define. Better to be precise.

Another option (and terminology we use to help developers) Can Keep Secrets / Can't Keep Secrets.

Attached screenshots in case anyone is interested in how this plays out in real-world UI (vs. specs).





On Jul 22, 2011, at 11:12 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth