-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 7/2/15 6:39 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Thursday, July 02, 2015 18:26 +0900 Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> i would appreciate hearing from actual publishing academics on >> the subject if doi would help them. > > Too late. The decision was made and implemented before the IAB > asked for a final review of these document. So, whether assigning > DOIs to the RFC Series is a good idea or a bad one, whether the > format chosen for the DOI suffix is optimal or not, etc., the > discussion is essentially OBE. At least as the IAB has chosen to > structure things, it needed to occur with the RFC Editor and/or > RSOC [1] many months ago. The IAB may wish to respond further, but just to correct a few points: See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/Yj4nsEFwjg8cveeDm91K tT8cA4g for the initial call for review of this draft in March 2014. Also, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/EQhxsU_csHe-9DjwEoou FGypVKE for the request to discuss the RFP to actually start work, posted in September 2014. There were other touch points with the community on the topic, but this work should not be a surprise. - -Heather Flanagan, RSE > > It seems to me that the only meaningful questions for the community > at this point are (i) whether the document should be published in > the RFC Series and (ii) whether it is satisfactory from an > editorial standpoint. For example, I think a discussion of > tradeoffs, including those associated with effectively endorsing a > "pay per identifier" system, would be desirable and that is an > editorial issue. > > See my earlier note for more discussion on the "things that it is > too late to undo" part. > > john > > [1] Disclaimer: I was a member of the RSOC until the IAB fired me > in mid-2013. I obviously don't know why they made that decision > although I note that everyone who had been continuously active on, > and contributing to, the RSOC retired or was removed at the same > time. While I was pleased to be relieved of the additional area of > responsibility, I was concerned that there might be no one left who > would spot the small issues (like the i18n one) and downsides of > proposals like this one and insist on their being fully discussed > and reviewed with the community (and not just the rfc-interest > list) before irreversible actions were taken. If anyone is > concerned that I might be more upset about the way this has been > handled if it were not for that history, you may be right but I > don't think it changes anything. > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2 Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVlUDFAAoJEER/xjINbZoGXb4IAIkyqI+1lCvtGb3lv+aFrm0Y T1aLYXQ550gxLklEigYz8UCrIsSUZsh51keyt23NBOLZ1v6D4NQkMJKj/jGnxkt1 VxOdbpzpwdrqJ9mSPMQdhKchWRAk7zCmZa9ceVvtmEdmBewbC90s15gPaJ57KU05 DQVFDYRTCkmLbvtSNch9+FDDrOpeFri958TfZJsOLH9CG1fvqESVeeId8N/RJglQ SUDaUWyhjHeqA/7ACeyYTMoZfUqp4Xsw2V7U+L0oUKEALAkfeJC5aPgkrRcH/wur C4IVubp8NtB5/D/iCDpcP2UUmy+v+Z6Fz2eskvTfVZg/55bhyqDnzk4Uwy6DxKE= =Cb0w -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----