( OAuth is in the cc cuz Rifaat :)
The objective is to reduce confusion in standards development by gathering
the definitions for terms used in existing specifications, and to create
awareness of the existing definitions for new work so that existing
definitions are used, or new definitions are intentionally created.
So yes, documents with new terms, and new definitions for existing terms
would be referenced in the glossary.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 9:23 AM Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>
wrote:
>
> {does oauth need to remain in the CC?}
>
> Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.s.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The *draft* proposal is talking about a *live* document, with some
> > ideas borrowed from the IANA registry process.
>
> Hmm... registration process.
> It sounds like you are maybe thinking _Specification Required_?
>
> So would documents that introduce new terms then be referenced from the
> Glossary?
> I kind of like that, but I also think it might be too restrictive if that's
> the only way to add to it. But, perhaps different entries have different
> levels of authority, and a term that comes from a Specification gets a
> higher
> status.
>
> In general, I think about the many (often vastly different) definitions
> that
> one can see in, for instance, the urban dictionary (.com).
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
> Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
