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

On 4 Jul 2015, at 13:34, Eliot Lear wrote:

> 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...
Correct, for _new_ RFCs that have not yet got an allocation.

   Patrik

> 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