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