ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Call for comment: <draft-iab-doi-04.txt> (Assigning Digital Object Identifiers to RFCs)

2015-07-02 03:58:01
On 2015-7-2, at 09:30, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer(_at_)nic(_dot_)fr> wrote:

This RFC must not be published.

DOIs are the opposite of what the IETF works for: the technical
standard is not freely available (88 swiss francs and I cannot
redistribute it), not developed in an open way, and it is managed by
an opaque private corporation (what about <https://open-stand.org/>).

True. But DOIs are also widely used, esp. in the academic community. For 
example, some university tenure committees will only consider publications as 
relevant that have a DOI. If we want to retain (or attract) academic 
participation, it would be helpful if RFCs could be made to count more towards 
tenure. The cost is minimal. People who dislike them can ignore them. People 
who benefit from them will use them. Everyone wins?

Various people have tried to make the argument before that RFCs should be 
considered as equivalent to a journal pub (e.g., 
http://www.sigcomm.org/sites/default/files/ccr/papers/2010/January/1672308-1672315.pdf).
 But it's a difficult argument to make, and you need to make it time and time 
again. Biting the bullet and assigning DOIs is an easier solution.

Lars

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>