[OAUTH-WG] Re: [ID-align] Re: Re: Re: Fwd: Internet Terminology Glossary

[Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 4:49 PM Dick Hardt <[e-mail]> wrote:

> ( OAuth is in the cc cuz Rifaat :)
>
> Guilty as charged :)

Regards,
 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 <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> {does oauth need to remain in the CC?}
>>
>> Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting
>> )
>>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list -- [e-mail]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>