--On Thursday, July 02, 2015 18:26 +0900 Randy Bush
<randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com> wrote:
i would appreciate hearing from actual publishing academics on
the subject if doi would help them.
Too late. The decision was made and implemented before the IAB
asked for a final review of these document. So, whether
assigning DOIs to the RFC Series is a good idea or a bad one,
whether the format chosen for the DOI suffix is optimal or not,
etc., the discussion is essentially OBE. At least as the IAB
has chosen to structure things, it needed to occur with the RFC
Editor and/or RSOC [1] many months ago.
It seems to me that the only meaningful questions for the
community at this point are (i) whether the document should be
published in the RFC Series and (ii) whether it is satisfactory
from an editorial standpoint. For example, I think a discussion
of tradeoffs, including those associated with effectively
endorsing a "pay per identifier" system, would be desirable and
that is an editorial issue.
See my earlier note for more discussion on the "things that it
is too late to undo" part.
john
[1] Disclaimer: I was a member of the RSOC until the IAB fired
me in mid-2013. I obviously don't know why they made that
decision although I note that everyone who had been continuously
active on, and contributing to, the RSOC retired or was removed
at the same time. While I was pleased to be relieved of the
additional area of responsibility, I was concerned that there
might be no one left who would spot the small issues (like the
i18n one) and downsides of proposals like this one and insist on
their being fully discussed and reviewed with the community (and
not just the rfc-interest list) before irreversible actions were
taken. If anyone is concerned that I might be more upset about
the way this has been handled if it were not for that history,
you may be right but I don't think it changes anything.