On 7/3/15 8:25 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote: > Also, the use of DOIs is not exclusive to using URNs or other document > identification schema. As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, > DOIs were used first because discussions with members of the IRTF and > academics within the IETF suggested these would be quite useful. Since > they do not preclude other identification schemes and can be ignored > by people who have no use for them, I see no problem in assigning the > identifiers to RFCs. This is a question: when a URN is encoded as a DOI, is that DOI registered? I'm wondering about a situation in which you effectively end up with two DOIs, one issued under the proposal described in this draft and the other being a URN encoded as a DOI. This clearly is not going to cause problems with their function as stable identifiers, nor will it affect the uniqueness of the identifiers (typically people who use these sorts of identifiers for lookup don't pay much attention to the internal structure of those identifiers), but it is a potential impact. A document that describes DOI use in RFCs should probably include recommendations for which DOI to include in citations. Melinda