The draft is from the RFC Editor. It is written by the person she
commissioned to do the work. It is coming from the IAB because the
conclusion some time back was that the sensible place to publish RFC
Editor RFCs was on the IAB stream. As Heather said, we could create a
separate stream for the RSE, but it seems rather odd.
So, the net is that what you ask for is exactly what is taking place.
No one asked the RSE to include URNs in the reference information. So
no effort was made to do so. I have no objection to folks asking for
such (I don't have an opinion one way or another about whether they are
useful.)
Yours,
Joel
On 7/9/15 3:16 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
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