Hi John, On 7/2/15 9:10 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > Eliot, > > In the interest of clarity, let me translate my comment into the > perspective you are expressing above. I am not trying to get > the decision changed, much less argue that we should be doing > something else (or nothing) instead. I am suggesting that, if > this is going to be produced as an IAB document and it is based > on professional advice that is, in turn, based on significant > research and input, then the document should contain an > explanation of the choices made, both because that is > professionally responsible and because educating this community > is not a bad idea (and that doing it through text is more > efficient than doing it by discussion on this list in response > to a call for comments). It's fine to have such a discussion here now, but in the document? No. I've been there. People just get lost and tune out on the aspects that we might want them not to. Remember, this is not a PhD thesis: a survey of existing work is not required. > > Given that the kind of skilled professional evaluation and > discussion t which you describe occurred, the document should > not suggest, as I think it does, that DOIs, or that particular > choice of format in the DOI suffix, were the only plausible > choices. It should not suggest it because such an assertion > would be false and false assertions are inconsistent with the > level of professionalism and review that you assert occurred. > (For the record, I believe the first but am wondering about the > second.) > Can you explain where such a suggestion is made? As to the form that comes AFTER the prefix, THAT is worthy of discussion, but that indeed may be too late. Eliot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature