On 07/09/2015 03:16 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 think the resolution service code could be written in a day.
Documenting it in an RFC might take a bit longer.
The RFC Editor already exports their bib information in XML, so getting
the information shouldn't be an issue.
(Though ideally, the RFC Editor would add the URN to their bib
information. How long it would take them to do so, I don't know, but
it doesn't seem like it should be difficult.)
The other thing that should be done is to update the xml2rfc code/data
to automatically include URNs in references.
The URN situation is a problem but I really don't think it should be gating.
I guess we just disagree on this. I see it as a huge problem when we
refuse to eat our own dogfood.
Keith