Hi. I agree completely with Joel, but let me add a bit more
detail and a possible alternative...
--On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 08:56 -0400 "Joel M. Halpern"
<jmh(_at_)joelhalpern(_dot_)com> wrote:
If you are asking that she arrange for the tools
to include provision for using ORCHIDs, that is a reasonable
request. SUch a request would presumably be prioritized along
with the other tooling improvement that are under
consideration.
And either explicit provision for ORCID or more general
provisions for other identifying characteristics might easily be
added as part of the still-unspecified conversions to support
non-ASCII characters.
That said, you could get ORCID IDs into RFCs on your own
initiative by defining and registering a URN type that embedded
the ORCID and then, in xml2rfc terms, using the <uri> element of
<author><address> to capture it. If you want to pursue that
course, RFCs 3044 and 3187 (and others) provide examples of how
it is done although I would suggest that you also consult with
the URNBIS WG before proceeding because some of the procedures
are proposed to be changed. The RFC Editor (at least) would
presumably need to decide that ORCID-based URNs were
sufficiently stable, but no extra tooling would be required.
On the other hand, if youa re asking that the IETF endorse or
encourage such uses, there are two problems. First, the RFC
Editor does not speak for the IETF. You need to actually get
a determination of IETF rough consensus on the ietf email
list. That consensus would need to be based on a more
specific question than "do we want to allow ORCHIDs", and then
would be judged on that question by the IETF chair.
And, if you asked that the ORCID be used _instead_ of other
contact information, the issues and several people have raised
would apply in that discussion and, at minimum, would make
getting consensus harder.
john