Re: Changing Terminology (was RE: IdP term in spec (was RE: Delegation discussion summary))
On 10/17/06, Dick Hardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we should be open (pun intended) to making changes. > > I really like the OpenID Provider -> shortens to OP, and is very > specific on what it does. > I have always found IdP to be a misnomer, and have mentioned it in > the past. > Now we have a great candidate, that provides more clarity, and it > should be a simple search and replace, and does not affect any code. While I am resistant to changing the specification without a compelling reason and strong consensus, I am open to coming up with a better term for this. The term IdP is already different from the OpenID 1 terminology (OpenID server), and no official specification has used it. If people agree on a better term, I won't resist. +0 on OpenID Provider (that is, better than IdP, but not better enough for me to defend if anyone objects) Josh ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Changing Terminology (was RE: IdP term in spec (was RE: Delegation discussion summary))
I think we should be open (pun intended) to making changes. I really like the OpenID Provider -> shortens to OP, and is very specific on what it does. I have always found IdP to be a misnomer, and have mentioned it in the past. Now we have a great candidate, that provides more clarity, and it should be a simple search and replace, and does not affect any code. Agreed the user friendly terms may take some more discussion. -- Dick On 15-Oct-06, at 11:58 AM, Recordon, David wrote: > I'd really prefer not to change terminology in the spec right now. > Seems like something we should have thought about four months ago > versus > a week after we said it would be final. There is nothing saying user > friendly terms that map to spec terms can't be created for the time > being. I do however think there will need to be healthy discussion > around them, that takes longer than a week. :) > > --David > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Drummond Reed > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:43 PM > To: 'Johannes Ernst'; specs@openid.net > Subject: IdP term in spec (was RE: Delegation discussion summary) > > Suggestion: sidestep the issue completely and in the spec -- and > everywhere else -- just call it OpenID provider. It's a simple > concatenation of "OpenID" and "service provider", so everyone gets it, > but nobody will associate it with SAML or federation or anything else. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Johannes Ernst > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:37 PM > To: specs@openid.net > Subject: Re: Delegation discussion summary > > We call it "identity host" at NetMesh. It's close enough to "identity > provider" so people understand it quickly, but does not have the > "provider" part to it (duh). > > On Oct 14, 2006, at 20:46, Scott Kveton wrote: > >>> I would propose that the term "Homesite" be used when prompting the >>> user to type in their IdP. I think the term "Identity Provider" is >>> overloaded and not user friendly. >> >> As per my last email I feel the same way about "identity provider" >> as well >> ... I agree with Dick; too overloaded and not user friendly. >> >> ___ >> specs mailing list >> specs@openid.net >> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs > > Johannes Ernst > NetMesh Inc. > > > ___ > specs mailing list > specs@openid.net > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs > > ___ > specs mailing list > specs@openid.net > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs > > ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: IdP term in spec (was RE: Delegation discussion summary)
Drummond Reed wrote: > Suggestion: sidestep the issue completely and in the spec -- and everywhere > else -- just call it OpenID provider. It's a simple concatenation of > "OpenID" and "service provider", so everyone gets it, but nobody will > associate it with SAML or federation or anything else. > This seems sensible. ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Changing Terminology (was RE: IdP term in spec (was RE: Delegation discussion summary))
I'd really prefer not to change terminology in the spec right now. Seems like something we should have thought about four months ago versus a week after we said it would be final. There is nothing saying user friendly terms that map to spec terms can't be created for the time being. I do however think there will need to be healthy discussion around them, that takes longer than a week. :) --David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Drummond Reed Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:43 PM To: 'Johannes Ernst'; specs@openid.net Subject: IdP term in spec (was RE: Delegation discussion summary) Suggestion: sidestep the issue completely and in the spec -- and everywhere else -- just call it OpenID provider. It's a simple concatenation of "OpenID" and "service provider", so everyone gets it, but nobody will associate it with SAML or federation or anything else. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Johannes Ernst Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:37 PM To: specs@openid.net Subject: Re: Delegation discussion summary We call it "identity host" at NetMesh. It's close enough to "identity provider" so people understand it quickly, but does not have the "provider" part to it (duh). On Oct 14, 2006, at 20:46, Scott Kveton wrote: >> I would propose that the term "Homesite" be used when prompting the >> user to type in their IdP. I think the term "Identity Provider" is >> overloaded and not user friendly. > > As per my last email I feel the same way about "identity provider" > as well > ... I agree with Dick; too overloaded and not user friendly. > > ___ > specs mailing list > specs@openid.net > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs Johannes Ernst NetMesh Inc. ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
IdP term in spec (was RE: Delegation discussion summary)
Suggestion: sidestep the issue completely and in the spec -- and everywhere else -- just call it OpenID provider. It's a simple concatenation of "OpenID" and "service provider", so everyone gets it, but nobody will associate it with SAML or federation or anything else. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Johannes Ernst Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:37 PM To: specs@openid.net Subject: Re: Delegation discussion summary We call it "identity host" at NetMesh. It's close enough to "identity provider" so people understand it quickly, but does not have the "provider" part to it (duh). On Oct 14, 2006, at 20:46, Scott Kveton wrote: >> I would propose that the term "Homesite" be used when prompting the >> user to type in their IdP. I think the term "Identity Provider" is >> overloaded and not user friendly. > > As per my last email I feel the same way about "identity provider" > as well > ... I agree with Dick; too overloaded and not user friendly. > > ___ > specs mailing list > specs@openid.net > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs Johannes Ernst NetMesh Inc. ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
