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

I think what John is saying is that it is possible to update the format
for new docs, should people think that appropriate.  But John can say
what he is saying better than I can say what he is saying, so...

Eliot

On 7/4/15 11:34 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> On 4 Jul 2015, at 11:29, John R Levine wrote:
>
> > > > 10.17487/RFC7556)
> > > Ok, then the format is already decided (although implicitly), and should 
> > > not be changed.
> > They're still opaque identifiers, so the format isn't important.  I don't 
> > know how to make that any clearer.
> Because they have been published, we immediately have a question about 
> persistence. We can now, from my perspective, not change the format as they 
> have already been included in the RFC Index. Its a persistence issue.
>
> We COULD have changed the format, discussed it, or whatever, but that point 
> in time is passed.
>
>    Patrik

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature