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

[Denis <[e-mail]>]

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 
> <[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]