Agreeing with John here re: it's just a bug. IEEE Xplore regularly does "deals" (read: free) to add publishers to the digital library. It is part of the network effect from their perspective: if you are more likely to get a hit using their service, you are more likely to use the service. We (RFC Editor? IAOC? Me as an individual?) can approach IEEE to add the RFC series to Xplore. On May 9, 2011, at 1:32 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Sunday, May 08, 2011 15:06 -0700 Bob Braden > <braden@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I just discovered an astonishing example of misinformation, >> shall we say, in the IEEE electric power community. There is >> an IEEE standards document C37.118, entitled (you don't care) >> "IEEE Standard for Synchrophasors for Power Systems >> C37-118(TM)-2005", which is currently of great importance for >> the instrumentation of the national power grid. I just noticed >> that it references RFC 793, and for curiosity looked to see >> how it was referenced. I found: >> >> [B8] RFC 793-1981,Transmission Control Protocol DARPA >> Internet Program Protocol Specification.[12] >> ... >> Now, it has always been IETF's (and even before there was an >> IETF, Jon Postel's) policy to allow people to sell RFCs. What >> astonishes me is that clever people in the IEEE don't know >> RFCs are available free online. I guess RFCs remain so >> counter-cultural that industrial types don't get it. I wonder >> how many other IEEE standards contain similar RFC-for-pay >> references.. > > Bob, > > What you presumably remember, but others reading this may not, > was just how many comments Jon made about the impossibility of > preventing fools from throwing their money away. And, of > course, it is in the interest of Global Engineering Documents > --which, in the era in which few folks had direct access to the > Internet was one of the better sources for miscellaneous > technical standards documents-- to let people continue to > believe that they are a convenient and standard (sic) source. > > > > --On Sunday, May 08, 2011 21:26 -0400 "John R. Levine" > <johnl@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> ... >> This isn't an enormous project, but it requires figuring out >> which online libraries are worth getting into, making the >> necessary arrangements with them (which may or may not involve >> money), a batch process to load in all the existing RFCs, and >> arrange with the production house to ensure that each new RFC >> gets listed as it's published. Most of these systems include >> abstracts and forward and backward references, which will >> doubtless require some debugging to make them work reliably. >> >> Like I said, it's a good project for the new RFC series >> editor. It should be a lot easier than deciding how to put >> Chinese names into RFCs. > > +1 > > I do note, however, that RFCs appear to be listed in ACM's Guide > to Computing Literature (essentially part of the ACM Digital > Library at this stage). Putting "Transmission Control Protocol" > into the search mechanism turns up RFC 793 in a hurry. And, > behold, they have full text available and retrieving it works > without any charges other than the access fees for the Digital > Library itself. "RFC Editor" is even on their list of > publishers for search purposes. > > The problem is that the titles they index do not contain the RFC > numbers, so looking up "RFC793" or "RFC 793". That is not a > decision to avoid indexing the series (which would require the > process John outlines to reverse) but a bug. I have filed a > bug report as Digital Library feedback. > > john > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf