RE: ISSN for RFC Series under Consideration

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: Re: ISSN for RFC Series under Consideration

I would rather pay $1 to provide bigger, better cookies or tap-dancing penguins during the plenaries.

 

I see no value in doing this and in fact plenty of reasons to oppose it.

 

Where is the $1500 of value to the IETF here? I can see the value to DOI. If the IETF were to go this route it should be expecting DOI to be paying a cut of the additional business generated, not to hand money over.

---

From: wgchairs-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of Marshall Eubanks
Sent: Thu 22/05/2008 9:10 AM
To: Henning Schulzrinne
Cc: Working Group Chairs; IAB; IETF Discussion; IAOC; Bill Manning; John C Klensin; RFC Editor
Subject: Re: ISSN for RFC Series under Consideration

On May 22, 2008, at 8:23 AM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> On a side note: If we want something URN-like that actually has
> traction outside the IETF, DOIs seem like the right approach. See http://www.doi.org/
>  Articles in our closest technical disciplines, namely those
> published by ACM and IEEE, already have DOIs, both for journal and
> conference articles.
>

Note that

    DOI is a registered URI within the info-URI namespace (IETF RFC 
4452, the "info" URI Scheme for Information
    Assets with Identifiers in Public Namespaces). Further information 
is available at http://info-uri.info.

These are not free; if we got DOI's for all RFCs through, e.g., 
Bowker, it would cost

    Up to 9999 DOIs - $1500 per year

I think it would be a good idea. A $ 1 increase in registration fees 
would more than pay for it.

Regards
Marshall


> This is obviously completely orthogonal to the ISSN issue.
>
> Henning
> _______________________________________________
> IETF mailing list
> IETF@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf