[rfc-i] DOIs and RFCs

John R Levine johnl at taugh.com
Thu Feb 13 18:40:10 PST 2014


>>>               series-num:     (1-9) 0*(0-9)
>> 
>> (no leading zeros)
>
> I believe that that is incorrect.  At the least, it's certainly not required 
> in real life, so why impose it here?

To make it unambiguous, so I know whether the DOI is /rfc123 or /rfc0123 
or /rfc00123.

>>>       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.
>> 
>> The series is letters, the number is digits. Seems pretty easy to parse to 
>> me.
>
> You are imposing a limitation on the series name that does not exist and is 
> not needed.

The DOI handbook says that slashes and dots are somewhat magic. 
I suppose we could use a hyphen or something, but given that the series 
names haven't changed in a long time, and I can't ever remember anyone 
suggesting a series with a non-alphabetic acronym, this doesn't seem like 
a problem that really needs solving.

http://www.doi.org/doi_handbook/2_Numbering.html#2.2.3


Regards,
John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list