On Mar 4, 2014, at 2:37 PM, IAB Chair <iab-chair(_at_)iab(_dot_)org> wrote:
This is a call for review of "Assigning Digital Object Identifiers
to RFCs" prior to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC.
The document is available for inspection here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-doi/
The Call for Review will last until 2 April 2014.
Normally, we ask for comments to go to the IAB mail list, but for
this document, it is more appropriate to use the RFC Interest list.
Please send comments to rfc-interest(_at_)rfc-editor(_dot_)org.
On behalf of the IAB,
Russ Housley
IAB Chair
Question on the document. I'm in favor of DOIs based on what I understand the
benefits to be, but it seems to me that the benefit is stated in a manner that
isn't very clear.
The statement, in the final paragraph of the introduction, is that it makes an
RFC easier to search and to cite. I believe that this is true for a specific
constituency, which is to say "academics". The use of a DOI makes it easier for
them to get academic credit for having written an RFC in the sense of
publishing a peer-reviewed paper, and it makes it easier for them to find such
papers.
Do I have the benefit down correctly? Are there other benefits, or other
constituencies?
To my way of thinking, adding a sentence or two in the introduction making the
benefit specific would be a good thing. I'm not opposed to publication as it
stands, but I think the clarity would be beneficial.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail