ISO has its processes and IETF has its processes While useful to learn from other SDOs, we don't all need to work the same way.
In the proposal, any WG can propose a new definition for an existing term, and refer to that definition. Collecting all the definitions is one of the goals. Is there a change we can make to the proposal to make that more clear? On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 12:59 PM Denis <denis.i...@free.fr> wrote: > Hi Dick, > > Living document is the right term. > > A living *database* would be the right term. > > :-) > > Note also that within ISO there is NOT a single definition for each term. > As an example, there are *81* results for the term "credential". > > Each ISO document is free to use its own terms ... as long as they are > clearly defined in a Clause numbered 3. > > Note also that you may get the three first clauses of any *published *ISO > document *for free* from https://www.iso.org/obp/ui > by querying this URL using its ISO number or parts of its title. > > Then the most interesting clause is Clause 2 that describes the scope of > the document, followed by Clause 3 that includes the terminology. > > Recently ISO changed its editing rules asking to make the scope as short > as possible and hence each of its words should be carefully chosen. > The major advantage is to make the scope of the document clearly > understandable. > > Denis > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list -- oauth@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to oauth-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list -- oauth@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to oauth-le...@ietf.org
