ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Call for comment: <draft-iab-doi-04.txt> (Assigning Digital Object Identifiers to RFCs)

2015-07-06 10:03:38
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

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 RFP to actually start work, posted in
September 2014.

There were other touch points with the community on the topic, but
this work should not be a surprise.

- -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

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVlUDFAAoJEER/xjINbZoGXb4IAIkyqI+1lCvtGb3lv+aFrm0Y
T1aLYXQ550gxLklEigYz8UCrIsSUZsh51keyt23NBOLZ1v6D4NQkMJKj/jGnxkt1
VxOdbpzpwdrqJ9mSPMQdhKchWRAk7zCmZa9ceVvtmEdmBewbC90s15gPaJ57KU05
DQVFDYRTCkmLbvtSNch9+FDDrOpeFri958TfZJsOLH9CG1fvqESVeeId8N/RJglQ
SUDaUWyhjHeqA/7ACeyYTMoZfUqp4Xsw2V7U+L0oUKEALAkfeJC5aPgkrRcH/wur
C4IVubp8NtB5/D/iCDpcP2UUmy+v+Z6Fz2eskvTfVZg/55bhyqDnzk4Uwy6DxKE=
=Cb0w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>