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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list -- oauth@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to oauth-le...@ietf.org
