W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: WGLC #349: "strength"

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:47:08 +1000
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <9EA59DB7-A42F-436B-81E7-7F7B15DA5DF9@mnot.net>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>

On 02/06/2012, at 10:05 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> 
> -1 as well. "credentials" carries clear message of something which carries authority and must be treated carefully. "details" does not.
> 
> As of right now wikipedia have a nice clear definition:
> "
> A credential is an attestation of qualification, competence, or authority issued to an individual by a third party with a relevant or de facto authority or assumed competence to do so.
> 
> Examples of credentials include academic diplomas, academic degrees, certifications, security clearances, identification documents, badges, passwords, user names, keys, powers of attorney, and so on.
> "
> 
> 
> Personally I think "credentials" is clearly data while "authenticator" implies a process actor. Switching that around could add a lot of confusion.
> 
> +1 for the status-quo.


I'd thought the issue was that we already use "credentials" to denote what-goes-on-the-wire, not what-goes-into-the-ua-and-is-munged-to-get-onto-the-wire. If we don't need to make a distinction between the two, I agree that credentials is fine.

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 4 June 2012 00:47:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 4 June 2012 00:47:44 GMT