On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Simon,
On 7/7/15 9:47 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Where in the document does it state any such obligation? This sort of
>> overstatement and misinformation is how we end up with a 100-message
>> sillyThread® on this mailing list.
> The document says:
>
> 4.4. Use of DOIs in RFCs
>
> The DOI agency requests that documents that are assigned DOIs in turn
> include DOIs when possible when referring to other organizations'
> documents.
> ...
> The RFC Style Guide will be updated to describe the rules for
> including DOIs in the References sections of RFCs.
>
> This goes beyond the alleged scope of _assigning_ DOIs to RFCs, and this
> change in IETF processes is not covered by the abstract or introduction
> section in this draft, nor the announcement regarding this draft.
>
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?
Let me reinforce this with my +0.02. I already use DOI in the bibliographies of my papers. Several entries of my BibTeX file have a DOI entry, so this is automatically added to the reference. I have nothing against it, actually, I like it because I think it like something that will help the readers of my paper to find reference they are interested into.
And it is *not* a change in IETF processes, but in the RFC Editor
process that almost nobody will notice when drafting their documents.
Eliot