> To: oauth@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: consumer (was Re: [oauth] Re: OAuth FAIL)
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
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
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
> Eran's suggestion of "Service", "Client", and "User-Agent" sounds likes
> it might work well to clarify the text.
I'll go as far as claiming that OAuth is a traditional client-server model. The
client uses a token to access resources. The fact that those resources are
owned by a third entity d
[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
> 'application' is certainly an OAuth system entity, but the application
On Mar 2, 2009, at 6:32 PM, Manger, James H wrote:
> I would be incredibly happy if OAuth talked about Applications,
> instead of Consumers (a term many have found strange).
The problem is that the term 'consumer' is quite accurate and
descriptive when you imagine that a software application
