[rfc-i] DOI and figures in RFCs [was: Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-plaintext-00.txt]

Elwyn Davies elwynd at folly.org.uk
Sat Jun 28 02:40:49 PDT 2014


On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 21:59 -0400, John R Levine wrote:
> > The point is that the figures would be separate "creations" in DOI
> > terminology in the new RFC world - i.e. independently created objects
> > that could be looked at separately.
> 
> That would be an exceedingly odd way to use DOIs.  A typical DOI refers to 
> an article in a journal, including the figures, bibliography and anything 
> else. The ones I've seen have the URL redirect to a landing page that if 
> you're lucky has the abstract and bibliographic crossrefs, and if you're 
> unlucky asks you for your credit card number and expiration date.  The 
> article itself is generally there with a link to a PDF.
> 
So the DOI will not be a reference to the canonical form after we move
to the new dispensation?  That is also odd.

THere is a difference between a journal which publishes a (paginated,
sorry, :-( ) article only its complete form and the proposal for the
IETF where the canonical form will be the collection of files.

> Keep in mind that our plan is to assign DOIs to RFCs, not to every I-D. 
> DOIs cost money, and there is no benefit I can see to paying for DOIs for 
> individual figures.

No, I wasn't expecting us to assign DOIs for I-Ds.  Although given that
we now try to make the entire history available, one could possibly see
a point to it.

/Elwyn



> 
> > There is another question here also:
> > How do you submit an I-D as the base XML2RFC file plus a number of
> > figures in separate files?
> > Multi-part MIME?
> > TAR or ZIP archive?
> 
> Probably.
> 
> 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