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
<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
