REST’s original meaning is pretty ambiguous and poorly specified. The dissertation was written to describe the design and architecture of the HTTP protocol itse

REST’s original meaning is pretty ambiguous and poorly specified. The dissertation was written to describe the design and architecture of the HTTP protocol itself, which was largely designed with and alongside this concept of REST. It predates a lot of modern Internet usage and thus doesn’t map perfectly onto current paradigms. I’d argue that even saying a “REST API” means you’re already in the land of impurity. “True REST” is expounded upon by Fielding in a variety of places, and is essentially HATEOS (hypermedia as the engine of application state). But no one, and I mean no one, actually does that. Thus, in order to communicate effectively and “have an agreement on terms,” as you say, we need a less strict definition. I provided my suggestion. If your suggestion is to go back to the primary sources, I have. Multiple times. It does not provide a particularly concrete or useful definition (because its point was not to define REST). If it had, trying to define it would be much less of a no true scotsman game. Notice that we’re not sitting here debating the meaning of HTTP.