Re: Call for comment: <draft-iab-doi-04.txt> (Assigning Digital Object Identifiers to RFCs)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> [BTW, as a (sort-of) side note, if you've read this document you're
> aware that it not only contains a discussion of assigning DOIs
> to RFCs but also contains a discussion of the use of DOIs within
> RFCs, because assigning DOIs to our documents carries with it
> the obligation to the issuing body to use DOIs within our own
> documents.]

Ugh.  That seems painful to me.  Assigning DOI's to RFCs could happen
external to the RFC itself, and could be something that doesn't cause a
lot of friction.  But if we are polluting RFCs with these DOI numbers,
and that we are forced to make an effort to do so as part of the
agreement with the DOI vendor, I think this whole thing sounds like a
bad idea and contrary to what the IETF usually stand for.

/Simon

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]