On 4 Jul 2015, at 2:29, John Levine wrote: > In retrospect, rather than making them look like RFC numbers I should > have used a pseudo-random 10 digit hash of the date, authors, and > document title so people would stop complaining about RFC123 vs. > RFC0123. Hmm...are DOIs _already_ allocated for [some] RFCs or not? I felt at first that was NOT the case. Then I understood this draft is documentation of existing practice. Then now I see between the lines that is not the case, as it is questioned what the format should be. Can someone please clarify? Patrik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature