Living document is the right term. A key objective is that the glossary is a collection of definitions that were made in other documents. Terms can only be added to the glossary if they have an existing definition.
This (hopefully) prevents the glossary work from becoming a bikeshedding activity. On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 12:10 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
