On 07/10/2015 02:01 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Keith & John,
On 7/10/15 1:58 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
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.
First, that doesn't sound like an offer of help, but a supposition. If
you wanted to write the code, that would be nice.
I believe I've made that offer elsewhere. But yes, I'm offering to
write the code.
Still, even if you
were kind enough to donate your time, then the code would need to be
maintained. And even if the code were written and maintained, someone
would actually have to use it. URNs have been out there for the better
part of two decades and yet they were not chosen by academia for this
purpose, even though, as John correctly points out, the concept of using
them for this purpose was articulated long ago. DOIs were chosen. That
infrastructure exists, and at least in some corners a DOI is necessary
for credit. The RFC Editor is being responsive to academia with the
hope that in return they will more engage in IETF activities. This
debate has lost sight of that goal. We need to do what we can to bring
those people back to the IETF so that we can benefit from their
research. The ANRP is something that ISOC does. This could be
something that the RFC Editor can do, and it costs almost nothing.
This "almost nothing" cost is actually more than the cost of supporting
URNs, because the technical effort of code writing and maintenance is
essentially identical.
But I don't disagree with what you are saying above about the
desirability of supporting academia. But again, if the RFC Editor is
undermining IETF standards, that's a serious problem. (Note also that
this is a standard that is actively being worked on by an IETF WG, so
it's not like IETF has abandoned it.) And that's why the issue of the
RFC Editor supporting DOIs is inherently coupled with that of supporting
URNs.
Before we go adding URNs into every RFC at the very least we should
understand the value of doing so, and whether it is either reasonable or
desirable to attempt to supplant/displace/compliment what is already
there.
This does not appear to have been done for DOIs.
Therefore, before you answer the question above, ask yourself this one:
is this the best use of people's time? Should the IETF focus on areas
that are closer to networking and not specific to a particular sector?
Do we have bigger fish to fry? I think we do, but that's me.
Perhaps we should be more concerned with the fact that we need to have
this discussion at all. This discussion is, after all, a significant
use of people's time, and it shouldn't have been necessary.
Keith