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
<mcr+i...@sandelman.ca <mailto:mcr%2bi...@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
<mailto:mcr%2bi...@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 tooauth-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list -- oauth@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to oauth-le...@ietf.org
