On Mar 4, 2014, at 2:37 PM, IAB Chair <iab-chair@xxxxxxx> wrote: > This is a call for review of "Assigning Digital Object Identifiers > to RFCs" prior to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC. > > The document is available for inspection here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-doi/ > > The Call for Review will last until 2 April 2014. > Normally, we ask for comments to go to the IAB mail list, but for > this document, it is more appropriate to use the RFC Interest list. > Please send comments to rfc-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx. > > On behalf of the IAB, > Russ Housley > IAB Chair Question on the document. I'm in favor of DOIs based on what I understand the benefits to be, but it seems to me that the benefit is stated in a manner that isn't very clear. The statement, in the final paragraph of the introduction, is that it makes an RFC easier to search and to cite. I believe that this is true for a specific constituency, which is to say "academics". The use of a DOI makes it easier for them to get academic credit for having written an RFC in the sense of publishing a peer-reviewed paper, and it makes it easier for them to find such papers. Do I have the benefit down correctly? Are there other benefits, or other constituencies? To my way of thinking, adding a sentence or two in the introduction making the benefit specific would be a good thing. I'm not opposed to publication as it stands, but I think the clarity would be beneficial.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail