Thanks Denis! This is very helpful.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 3:24 PM Denis <denis.i...@free.fr> wrote: > Hi Rifaat, > > FYI, I copy and paste a part of a message I sent to saag on 14/03/2024. > > *Every RFC shall include a "Terms and definitions" section for the > vocabulary that it uses* > > This topic is rather for the IESG, but could be reported to the IESG > by the SEC ADs. > > Every ISO standard must include a Clause 3 that defines the terms and > the definitions that are used. > This has a merit: different ISO standards can use the same terms with > a different meaning when necessary. > ISO provides a (free) nice tool to find ALL the definitions of a term > in ALL the *published * ISO documents: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui > This is a great help when there is the need to define a new term, and > in some cases to avoid to reinvent the wheel. > > Note: within ISO, a definition is a single sentence and no more. > > Currently, the IETF does not mandate RFCs to include a "Terms and > definitions" section. This should evolve. > > On the long term, it would be nice to have a resource like: > https://www.ietf.org/obp/ui > > Denis > > 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 > > >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list -- oauth@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to oauth-le...@ietf.org
