--On Thursday, July 09, 2015 13:04 -0400 Keith Moore
<moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/02/2015 11:23 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>> On 2015-7-2, at 17:08, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>> Or perhaps we should be publishing and using _all_ of these
>>> identifiers, on theories usually described as "let the
>>> marketplace decide" or "let a hundred flowers blossom".
>> I don't mind if we did this, as long as we do DOIs now.
>
> Strongly disagree. The use of DOIs in RFCs should cease
> unless/until RFCs also support URNs.
Keith,
While I'm sympathetic to where you are coming from, there is
apparently a contract in place and a good number of RFCs have
been issued with DOIs in them. Other than as a means to making
the RFC Editor feel slapped around -- an activity I have trouble
believing would be productive-- I have trouble believing that
the time and energy needed to undo whatever new tooling and
databases are there would have even significant symbolic value.
If putting explicit URNs next to those DOIs is seen as
beneficial, let's just move forward as quickly as possible with
getting that done and not force folks to take a step or two
backward first.
john