[tor-onions] Renaming Rendezvous Single Onion Services

[Aaron Johnson]

> 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.
> 
> 
> This is why you should never geeks - including me - decide branding issues.  :-)

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.

> 
> "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.  
> 
> Sorry Aaron, but the very example you cite is about "indicating a lack of protection”.  

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

I see this is a discussion to figure out how we describe it as we develop it. If Tor wants to rebrand later, fine.

Aaron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-onions/attachments/20160309/e5a009ac/attachment.html>