On May 22, 2008, at 10:35 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Thursday, 22 May, 2008 10:15 -0400 Ed Juskevicius > <edj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Steve: >> >>> 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. > >> I have the impression that we would be pioneering the use of >> an ISSN to identify a standards' series, if we choose to do >> this. The "real" standards from other organizations seem to >> be identified with individual ISBNs. > > If all RFCs were standards, this would be a good argument. > However, the RFC series contains Standards, various types of > substandards for which those other bodies either have no > equivalents or publish differently, experimental protocol > specifications, BCP statements, and an assortment of > informational documents. What an ISSN identifies is the > series, not the individual documents, and that series is _not_ a > "standards series". > > My impression is that this type of application is not > particularly novel. More on that next week. > > As I indicated in my note to Melissa, having an ISSN for the > series would not prevent obtaining ISBNs and/or DOIs for > selected individual documents, so those ideas are really > completely separate questions. > >> Would the purveyors of nonsense be squelched by an ISSN, or >> emboldened? Some might cite our decision as yet another >> example of the IETF doing something different and >> 'non-standard'. > > Very unlikely. At worst, we would be "accused" of illustrating > ways in which an existing standard mechanism can be carried > forward in interesting ways into the modern Internet age. On > the other hand, if we treat RFCs as basically paper (and > page-format) publications that are freely available online as I > suggested in an earlier note, this becomes that most routine of > applications. > Here is a concrete suggestion. We (for some definition of we) have the Internet Journal, which is paper. Publish a "Supplement of the Internet Journal," in paper, or on line, which is - physically published 3 times a year - has all of the RFC's published since then - includes the level 1 RFC errata as available - includes other notes like RFC's that have been made obsolete, etc. - charge it to cover costs at least (say, $ 500 / year for a subscription). This would be picked up by at least some libraries, and would solve the "on-line is ephemera" problem. Regards Marshall >> Marshall, to your point: >> >>> It is easy to find RFC's now, but it may not be in a century. >>> >>> This may seem silly, but I think that RFCs will still >>> have relevance in a century and, having experience >>> searching for 100+ year old astronomical publications >>> and data, in my opinion, RFC's need to be cataloged in >>> libraries. >>> >>> Libraries have running code for the maintenance of >>> intellectual property over centuries; the IETF does not. >> >> I agree with you 100%. I think this is indeed a tangible and >> desirable objective. > > Indeed. And libraries, especially the subset of libraries that > have national archival responsibilities, do pay attention to > these identifiers. > > john > _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf