I would rather pay $1 to provide bigger, better cookies or tap-dancing penguins
during the plenaries.
I see no value in doing this and in fact plenty of reasons to oppose it.
Where is the $1500 of value to the IETF here? I can see the value to DOI. If
the IETF were to go this route it should be expecting DOI to be paying a cut of
the additional business generated, not to hand money over.
________________________________
From: wgchairs-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org on behalf of Marshall Eubanks
Sent: Thu 22/05/2008 9:10 AM
To: Henning Schulzrinne
Cc: Working Group Chairs; IAB; IETF Discussion; IAOC; Bill Manning; John C
Klensin; RFC Editor
Subject: Re: ISSN for RFC Series under Consideration
On May 22, 2008, at 8:23 AM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
On a side note: If we want something URN-like that actually has
traction outside the IETF, DOIs seem like the right approach. See
http://www.doi.org/
Articles in our closest technical disciplines, namely those
published by ACM and IEEE, already have DOIs, both for journal and
conference articles.
Note that
DOI is a registered URI within the info-URI namespace (IETF RFC
4452, the "info" URI Scheme for Information
Assets with Identifiers in Public Namespaces). Further information
is available at http://info-uri.info <http://info-uri.info/> .
These are not free; if we got DOI's for all RFCs through, e.g.,
Bowker, it would cost
Up to 9999 DOIs - $1500 per year
I think it would be a good idea. A $ 1 increase in registration fees
would more than pay for it.
Regards
Marshall
This is obviously completely orthogonal to the ISSN issue.
Henning
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf