I think we are in agreement here. I did not mean for "dynamic" to be interpreted as the term might change after it was defined. I will try to avoid using the term "dynamic" to avoid any future confusion.
Regards, Rifaat On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 3:10 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote: > > Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.s.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That's where we started, but that was deemed problematic because that > > document was produced as an Independent Submission Stream, which is > > outside of the IETF process. Also, the RFC is a static document, > while > > what we are proposing is a living and dynamic document. > > I think that we can update/replace 4949. The fact that it came through ISE > doesn't matter: we can produce a new document. > > While I agree that we need a living document which is easy to extend and > amend, I don't actually think we want "dynamic". Having the definition of > terms change from under the users of the term is a problem. > > So I am in agreement that a git backed wiki is a good way to build a > terminology, I think that the contents should be fixed periodically so that > it can be stably referenced. That doesn't mean it has to be an RFC; many > wiki have the ability to reference a term at a specific date. > > ps: thank you for championing this, it's way overdue. > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > > > -- > ID-align mailing list -- id-al...@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to id-align-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list -- oauth@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to oauth-le...@ietf.org
