The effort here is (was intended to be) making a list of known issues and not
so much trying to fix them.
EHL
> -Original Message-
> From: oauth@googlegroups.com [mailto:oa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
> Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 2:19 AM
> To: oauth@googlegro
Hi James,
On Mar 2, 2009, at 8:55 PM, Manger, James H wrote:
> [johnk said]
>> The problem is that the term 'consumer' is quite accurate and
>> descriptive when you imagine that a software application, in the role
>> of a consumer, is consuming the output of the "service provider". An
>> 'applic
Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> It is time to admit that while the terms fit the model, they confuse the shit
> out of everyone reading the spec. That's a clear FAIL.
I think that's a good synopsis:-)
Just one thing though, given that the putative IETF WG is probably
going to be chartered to addre
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 4:43 AM, John Kemp wrote:
>
> On Mar 2, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Brian Eaton wrote:
>
> >
> > Ah, I totally forgot about the whole "consumer key" nomenclature.
> >
> > It would make me incredibly happy if OAuth talked about "consumer
> > name"
>
> Exactly, the "consumer key" is an
Not quite. In many cases (Liberty Alliance, SOA, Apple developer etc.) I've seen
the term Service Consumer (and also Web Service Consumer) used and paired up
with (Web) Service Provider.
Hosting a protected resource and granting access to it is providing a service
so I think SP is an appropriate t
