Did anyone earlier ask the RFC Editor to change the reference format for
RFCs from RFCxyzw to urn:ietf:rfc:xyzw? (I gather you are asking now,
but objecting because it was not done when it was not asked seems
strange. Remember that this has been brought to the communities
attention several times in the past.)
And if the RFC Editor made such a change, would it help any user of the
RFCs in understanding or following the reference? As far as I can tell,
it would not help at all. Maybe I am missing something (just as I
forgot RFC 2648 since it did not seem useful for anything.)
Yours,
Joel
On 7/9/15 12:27 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 07/07/2015 12:52 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
Let me say again what I think many others have said. There is
really no objection to including DOIs in RFCs on the basis
represented by recently-published ones.
I strongly object to including DOIs in RFCs unless URNs are equally
supported. This is undermining IETF standards efforts and not
something that's appropriate for the RSE to be doing.
Keith