On May 23, 2008, at 10:49 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > Some points: > > 1) If the objective is to have a URN for RFCs this has already been > done: > > RFC 2648: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2648.txt "A URN Namespace for > IETF Documents" > > These identifiers must be the canonical identifiers for the RFC > series. But they need not be the only identifiers. > > 2) Schemes which rely on paying registrars to sell people numbers > are probably unsustainable in the long run unless there is a > business reason to use that specific number. > > This is certainly the case for IP numbers. I don't see the business > reason for this particular application. Hence I don't see a value in > purchasing a DOI identifier at the reported $1500/annum or for > accepting one for free use. > That was $ 1500 per annum for a block of 9,999. It is a little more complicated - see http://www.usdoi.org/index.php?page=DOI_prefix The cost for a prefix for 9,999 RFC's would be - $ 250 up front - $ 1500 for the block or a continuing charge of less than $ 1 / RFC / year. I am not advocating DOI's, just reporting on what is entailed. Note that this is not the only registrar; others may be more or less expensive. Regards Marshall > I would consider that to be an endorsement and I don't think that > the IETF or ISOC should get any further into that game than it > alrady has. > > 3) Whether the documents are paper or digital is now irrelevant. > Dead tree publication technology will certainly disappear at some > point. My book sells in both paper and Kindle editions. The killer > application of Kindle appears to be sale of periodicals and > newspapers rather than just books. > > The industry has a clear business need and so they will apply ISSNs > to this new field regardless of what the rules might say on the > matter. > > 4) ISSNs are used in the library system. They are used in the Z39.50 > protocol which is the principal protocol used to support that > infrastructure today. I think we should get one. > > > 5) This topic is a very interesting one and thus one on which a > large number of people may have an opinion. The problems raised in > the ESDS BOF are very similar. > > Because it is an area where many people may have an opinion it > appears to me that the decisive technical breakthrough we might need > in this area might well be to develop a technology that allows > people to have separate opinions in this area and not attempt to > impose more homogeneity than is actually required. > _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf