<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">How about “exposed" onion services? It’s less ambiguous than “open”, is an antonym to “hidden”, is short and nice to say, and suitably indicates a lack of protection for the onion service.<br class=""></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This is why you should never geeks - including me - decide branding issues. :-)</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I don’t accept the label “geek”. Moreover, I am participating in this discussion to choose the name that I will be calling it for the next many months, and thus I have a stake in it.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">"Exposed" is a case in point; it's a negative concept. People die of exposure. You might be naked and exposed. The word "expose" generally is associated with connotations where "exposure" is a bad thing. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Sorry Aaron, but the very example you cite is about "indicating a lack of protection”. </div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>It is exactly this cautionary message to the operator that we are trying to obtain, and it apparently is successful. I would prefer a slightly more positive message, but I don’t see how to have both.</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">All qualitative labels will have this problem: Free, Libre, Open, Closed, Hidden, Public, Private ... all of these describe an abstract intent, rather than a technology. Such qualitative label-names are inevitably presumptuous of {some} implementer's intent.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I am definitely arguing to convey intent rather than to convey technical implementation. We had reached an equilibrium with “single onion services” that nickm upset because it didn’t properly convey intent.</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">David says that this is "going to be part of the ABI" - in which case I am amazed that we're having this discussion because config file contents are free to be disjoint from branding, and can be as insane as you like.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I see this is a discussion to figure out how we describe it as we develop it. If Tor wants to rebrand later, fine.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Aaron</div></div></body></html>