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

[Denis <[e-mail]>]

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 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>     Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>                Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     ID-align mailing list -- [e-mail]
>     To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email [e-mail]