> 4 jul 2015 kl. 16:29 skrev John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>: > > > > --On Saturday, July 04, 2015 11:34 +0200 Patrik Fältström > <paf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> They're still opaque identifiers, so the format isn't >>> important. I don't know how to make that any clearer. >> >> Because they have been published, we immediately have a >> question about persistence. We can now, from my perspective, >> not change the format as they have already been included in >> the RFC Index. Its a persistence issue. >> >> We COULD have changed the format, discussed it, or whatever, >> but that point in time is passed. > > This is one of the points I've been trying to make. The issue > for me is not, and hasn't been, whether we should assign DOIs to > the RFC Series or not -- I really don't care. And it isn't > "surprise" because, as Heather points out, it wasn't hard to > know that a decision had been taken to "do DOIs" and that _some_ > DOI arrangements were underway. I am more concerned about the > decisions that lead to this "decide first, make irrevocable > decisions about details (or just let them happen), deploy, and > _then_ ask for review. And that leads exactly to Patrik's > comment about what we "COULD" have done above. Perhaps the RSE interpreted the lack of feedback on those announcements on rfc-interest as indication that nobody gave a hoot about the details. I certainly would have. > > Picking just one example, Heather's note pointed to the > September 2014 SOW > (http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/Announce-RFC-DOI-SOW-3Sep14.pdf > if anyone wants to look at the action text rather than the > announcement) but it does not contain a word about the choice of > the particular format for the suffix. Similarly, not only was > that March 2014 call for review a call for comments to the > rfc-interest list (not even to the IAB) but there is nothing in > it that implies that it is a major decision point about the > details -- at that stage in the development of things, or even > at the time of the September SOW, it was reasonable (at least > IMO) to interpret the DOI format in the draft as a placeholder > to be discussed later. > > Normally, "comment to a WG list" or "comment to other than the > IAB or IETF lists" implies a request for review and comments but > that the community will get another chance to review before the > final decision point. And normally we don't treat SOWs, even > SOWs that _do_ include the precise details, as decision > documents about issues that, once decide, have broad impact and > are irreversible. If the intention here was to make those > announcements of decision points, then they should have been, > again IMO, much more clear about it. > > Sure, people could have noticed those lines and said "I > certainly hope you are not planning to use DOI: 10.NNNNN/rfcNNNN > as the suffix format" but should have been no expectation that > not doing so was support for a final decision, any more than > failure to study an I-D that lies largely outside one's major > area of interest and comment, to a list associated with it, > creates a binding decision that cannot be questioned or even > reversed on IETF Last Call. > > Had someone asked the community the question "does DOI: > 10.17487/RFCnnnn look like a satisfactory suffix format", we > COULD have had that review as Patrik suggests (and many others > of us have suggested in other ways). > > I will defend a decision like that suffix format one as one that > the RFC Series Editor can make and announce to the community, > subject to whatever oversight the IAB (directly or via the RSOC) > chooses to apply. But that implies that the RSE needs to be > accountable for such decisions -- both their substance and the > details of the analysis that went into them. What I expected to > hear from Heather was "these are the tradeoffs we considered and > why the decision was made this way" not "this should not have > been a surprise". > > While it is not yet irreversible, I think one can have a very > similar discussion about the messaging involved relative to > other work and identifiers. For example, I think some of this > discussion, including the RSOC and IAB openness to adding more > identifiers, ought to be in this document, making clear that > DOIs may be the first (actually second, given RFC 2648) in a > series rather than an IETF/ IAB/ RFC Editor commitment to one > particular system. That sort of issue is what calls for > comment are supposed to be about. > > john >