On 7/9/15 11:00 AM, Keith Moore wrote: > On the contrary, having DOIs without having URNs does tremendous harm > to an established IETF standard that is actually in wide use (though > not widely used in the same circles that use DOIs). I'm not sure that I'd agree that it does "tremendous" harm but it does look awfully peculiar. How much effort would actually be required for the IETF to provide a resolution service for URNs? I am not opposed to adding DOIs to RFCs but I suspect that this would all have gone much more smoothly if the RSE had simply said "DOIs are widely-used bibliographic identifiers and we think we should assign them, too" or if the draft had come from the RFC editor herself. Turning this into an IAB document and including overblown claims about what's gained by adding them were unnecessary - doing this in a straightforward way would, I think, have produced more straightforward discussion and results. The URN situation is a problem but I really don't think it should be gating. Melinda