This is what an entry in rfc-index.txt looks like these days:
7556 Multiple Provisioning Domain Architecture. D. Anipko, Ed.. June
2015. (Format: TXT=59307 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL) (DOI:
10.17487/RFC7556)
Eliot
On 7/4/15 9:05 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> 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