[rfc-i] DOIs and RFCs

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Wed Feb 12 08:13:39 PST 2014


On 2/12/14 8:03 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 2/11/2014 2:15 PM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> John Levine has written an I-D on assigning Digital Object Identifiers
>> (DOIs) to RFCs.  This draft has been accepted by the IAB as an IAB
>> stream draft.
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-doi/
> 
> 
> Forgive my veering from the dominant focus of this thread, so I can
> provide some actual content feedback, but...

Content feedback is appreciated.

> 
> 
> 1. It probably would be useful to have the document provide more
> justification and use text, to make clear what the benefits of adding
> DOIs to RFCs (and Internet-Drafts?) will be.

I do not think going down the path of DOI for I-Ds would be a good idea.
 I know the urban legend of the disappearing-after-6-months I-D has been
largely squashed, but I would still rather avoid adding another layer of
permanence.  An I-D should get its RFC number and DOI only after it has
completed the process of consensus (if applicable) and review.

> 
> 2. Section two provides the actual format specification.
> 
>      a) I suggest adding ABNF to this, along the lines of:
> 
>              ietf-doi:       doi-url "/" ietf-specific
> 
>              doi-url:        "http://dx.doi.org/"
> 
>              ietf-specific:  "10.123456" "/" ietf-series "/" series-num
> 
>              ietf-series:    "bcp", "std", "rfc"
> 
>              series-num:     1*(0-9)
> 
>      b) As indicated in the above bnf, I suggest separating the series
> label from the document number through a syntax convention, rather than
> requiring the parser to know all the strings.
> 

No objection from me, but I'll ask John L. to chime in with his take on
this.

-Heather



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list