Every so often someone suggests RFCs are not first class documents and hence not comparable to, say, "real" standards documents. Getting traditional identifiers attached to them might squelch some of this nonsense. Steve On May 22, 2008, at 9:12 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 5/22/08 8:51 AM, "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Indeed, another way of looking at this question is that deciding >> to register an ISSN for the RFC series really does not preclude >> anything else (including, were we so inclined, putting DOIs on >> each RFC) and we should therefore be asking "ISSN or not ISSN" >> with all questions about other sorts of identifiers and >> cataloging being viewed as separate. > > I think the cataloging question is probably central to the > question of whether or not to bother with an ISSN. I don't > think an ISSN has any practical value other than that it > increases the likelihood that LC will catalog the series/ > serial and that libraries will then start sticking it into > their electronic holdings. Now, I'm not sure I see an > advantage to getting libraries to pick up RFCs given how > trivial it is to find them online, but that's another matter. > Another advantage is discrimination in the event that some other > serial publication is also called "Request for Comments," but > again I'm not sure that's an actual problem. But mainly, > getting an ISSN gets the series into the library system. > > Melinda > > _______________________________________________ > IETF mailing list > IETF@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf