On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
Simon,
On 7/7/15 9:47 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Where in the document does it state any such obligation? This sort of
overstatement and misinformation is how we end up with a 100-message
sillyThread® on this mailing list.
The document says:
4.4. Use of DOIs in RFCs
The DOI agency requests that documents that are assigned DOIs in turn
include DOIs when possible when referring to other organizations'
documents.
...
The RFC Style Guide will be updated to describe the rules for
including DOIs in the References sections of RFCs.
This goes beyond the alleged scope of _assigning_ DOIs to RFCs, and this
change in IETF processes is not covered by the abstract or introduction
section in this draft, nor the announcement regarding this draft.
It is not an obligation but a request, and there is a very big
difference. Further, if what we are talking about is adding a DOI a
reference entry, what is the big deal? In fact, if there is a known DOI
all the better to find the source, especially for external references.
Why *wouldn't* we encourage that?
Let me reinforce this with my +0.02. I already use DOI in the
bibliographies of my papers. Several entries of my BibTeX file have a DOI
entry, so this is automatically added to the reference. I have nothing
against it, actually, I like it because I think it like something that will
help the readers of my paper to find reference they are interested into.
And it is *not* a change in IETF processes, but in the RFC Editor
process that almost nobody will notice when drafting their documents.
Eliot