Re: Call for comment: <draft-iab-doi-04.txt> (Assigning Digital Object I

On 4 Jul 2015, at 9:45, Eliot Lear wrote:

> This is what an entry in rfc-index.txt looks like these days:
>
> 7556 Multiple Provisioning Domain Architecture. D. Anipko, Ed.. June
>   2015. (Format: TXT=59307 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL) (DOI:
>   10.17487/RFC7556)
Ok, then the format is already decided (although implicitly), and should not be 
changed.

   Patrik

> Eliot
>
> On 7/4/15 9:05 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> > On 4 Jul 2015, at 2:29, John Levine wrote:
> >
> > > In retrospect, rather than making them look like RFC numbers I should
> > > have used a pseudo-random 10 digit hash of the date, authors, and
> > > document title so people would stop complaining about RFC123 vs.
> > > RFC0123.
> > Hmm...are DOIs _already_ allocated for [some] RFCs or not?
> >
> > I felt at first that was NOT the case.
> >
> > Then I understood this draft is documentation of existing practice.
> >
> > Then now I see between the lines that is not the case, as it is questioned 
> > what the format should be.
> >
> > Can someone please clarify?
> >
> > Patrik

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature