+1 Thank you for your input. Seems to me to be a conflict of
interest issue. I support the basic concept but why not use a IETF
registry instead? Solves several of the conflict of interest
concerns, including about 3rd party entities disappearing, losing
support, etc.
--
HLS
On 9/17/2013 8:56 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Heather Flanagan can be most easily reached at
rfc-editor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, the specified email address for reaching
the rfc-editor.
Note however that you need to be clear as to what you are asking her.
If you are asking that she arrange for the tools to include provision
for using ORCHIDs, that is a reasonable request. SUch a request would
presumably be prioritized along with the other tooling improvement
that are under consideration.
On the other hand, if youa re asking that the IETF endorse or
encourage such uses, there are two problems. First, the RFC Editor
does not speak for the IETF. You need to actually get a determination
of IETF rough consensus on the ietf email list. That consensus would
need to be based on a more specific question than "do we want to allow
ORCHIDs", and then would be judged on that question by the IETF chair.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
On 9/17/13 8:26 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
On 17 September 2013 13:07, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I'm not sure much needs to be done other than talking with Heather
Flanagan (the RFC Editor), getting her sign-off, and then getting
it into the xml2rfc schema and noting its existence.
Thank you. Is Heather on this list?
I hope that what's going on here is *not* that there's been
little uptake and you're trying to promote its use.
On the contrary; the uptake from both individuals, and organisations
incorporating ORCID into their publishing workflows - is impressive,
as you can see form reading the ORCID website & blog.