-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
(Resending now that my posting permissions have been fixed)
On 7/2/15 6:39 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--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.
The IAB may wish to respond further, but just to correct a few points:
See
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/Yj4nsEFwjg8cveeDm91K
tT8cA4g
for the initial call for review of this draft in March 2014. Also, see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/EQhxsU_csHe-9DjwEoou
FGypVKE
for the request to discuss the SoW/RFP to actually start work, posted in
September 2014.
There were other touch points with the community on the topic,
including mention at the last four technical plenaries, so
this work should not be a surprise.
Also, the use of DOIs is not exclusive to using URNs or other document
identification schema. As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread,
DOIs were used first because discussions with members of the IRTF and
academics within the IETF suggested these would be quite useful. Since
they do not preclude other identification schemes and can be ignored
by people who have no use for them, I see no problem in assigning the
identifiers to RFCs.
- -Heather Flanagan, RSE
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVlreGAAoJEER/xjINbZoG4CIIAKs9eRgjaChLPZb08rIzG3FL
/HgOsxc4ES+b+C1TuSQ9Hy+QuHqpSexbzJvaBr84Tu/nLYrBns3sWKJhD6smhMem
2LTewrki0qUur45gJ4os86FGuQpbDOUsn9WhSmwuEd13+VGs1TRq4muNzqZQg0Md
EHSAmDtCEM3EXWm6eA/NDnMZKcjCNxmGtw86BvSLsEmPblumloo4egfXYRvAC8Vc
+rBqhVeWevbe2JVrY54RgRKawcZQS/YqXUVdKgHBJa8qGI8r3XTmDuBQNQzrbI/O
PIua9TAgNFEWDS21Pxjw8vyJ0CCnca+ScCh95OnuCCfJu/Xu/jhsg0eHCFV5L50=
=r+lN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----