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