ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: horse left the barn, etc, was <draft-iab-doi-04.txt> (Assigning Digital Object Identifiers to RFCs)

2015-07-09 10:05:49
How about, if we have something better to include, we add that. Then, if we find that the world is using what we produced, and not using DOIs, we can stop using the DOIs. While some folks have commented on list that they do not need DOIs for academic purposes, other folks have been very clear that it is very helpful.

Yours,
Joel

On 7/9/15 10:43 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 07/07/2015 06:00 AM, John Levine wrote:
Ugh.  That seems painful to me.  Assigning DOI's to RFCs could happen
external to the RFC itself, and could be something that doesn't cause a
lot of friction.  But if we are polluting RFCs with these DOI numbers,
and that we are forced to make an effort to do so as part of the
agreement with the DOI vendor, I think this whole thing sounds like a
bad idea and contrary to what the IETF usually stand for.
Here's a thought experiment.  What sort of bad things would happen if
the RFC publisher were to add DOIs in the manner described in this
draft for a couple of months?


Among other things, it creates the impression that IETF doesn't use its
own standards for identifiers.

IMO, DOIs need to cease appearing in RFCs.

Keith




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