On May 23, 2008, at 10:49 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Some points:
1) If the objective is to have a URN for RFCs this has already been
done:
RFC 2648: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2648.txt "A URN Namespace for
IETF Documents"
These identifiers must be the canonical identifiers for the RFC
series. But they need not be the only identifiers.
2) Schemes which rely on paying registrars to sell people numbers
are probably unsustainable in the long run unless there is a
business reason to use that specific number.
This is certainly the case for IP numbers. I don't see the business
reason for this particular application. Hence I don't see a value in
purchasing a DOI identifier at the reported $1500/annum or for
accepting one for free use.
That was $ 1500 per annum for a block of 9,999. It is a little more
complicated - see
http://www.usdoi.org/index.php?page=DOI_prefix
The cost for a prefix for 9,999 RFC's would be
- $ 250 up front
- $ 1500 for the block
or a continuing charge of less than $ 1 / RFC / year.
I am not advocating DOI's, just reporting on what is entailed. Note
that this is not the only registrar; others may be more or less
expensive.
Regards
Marshall
I would consider that to be an endorsement and I don't think that
the IETF or ISOC should get any further into that game than it
alrady has.
3) Whether the documents are paper or digital is now irrelevant.
Dead tree publication technology will certainly disappear at some
point. My book sells in both paper and Kindle editions. The killer
application of Kindle appears to be sale of periodicals and
newspapers rather than just books.
The industry has a clear business need and so they will apply ISSNs
to this new field regardless of what the rules might say on the
matter.
4) ISSNs are used in the library system. They are used in the Z39.50
protocol which is the principal protocol used to support that
infrastructure today. I think we should get one.
5) This topic is a very interesting one and thus one on which a
large number of people may have an opinion. The problems raised in
the ESDS BOF are very similar.
Because it is an area where many people may have an opinion it
appears to me that the decisive technical breakthrough we might need
in this area might well be to develop a technology that allows
people to have separate opinions in this area and not attempt to
impose more homogeneity than is actually required.
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf