On 4 Jul 2015, at 9:45, Eliot Lear wrote: > 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) Ok, then the format is already decided (although implicitly), and should not be changed. Patrik > 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