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]

 



On 2015-7-7, at 10:01, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It is not an obligation but a request, and there is a very big
> difference.  Further, if what we are talking about is adding a DOI a
> reference entry, what is the big deal?  In fact, if there is a known DOI
> all the better to find the source, especially for external references. 
> Why *wouldn't* we encourage that?

+1

And if we have to add a "no_doi" option to the xml2rfc vocabulary to appease those that don't want their references polluted by DOIs, that's a possibility. Kinda silly, because we'd be spending development cash on a feature that probably few folks would care to use, but we could.

Lars




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