[rfc-i] URIs in references, was: Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide"
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Wed Mar 26 16:44:53 PDT 2014
On 27/03/2014 12:26, John Levine wrote:
>>>> 2) Maybe it should also be stated that "tinyurl" and its equivalents
>>>> are not allowed, i.e. URIs must point directly to the target. However,
>>>> I suppose DOIs are allowed.
>>> What about PURLs?
>> I have no opinion about that; I had to Google PURL...
>> But it does look as if this area needs more comprehensive language than
>> the current draft has. As far as I can see, devices such as DOIs, PURLs
>> and tinyurls do nothing to ensure that the target content is stable,
>> which is what really matters for a reference.
> Dunno about PURLs, but for DOIs you're mistaken. Each DOI has a
> corresponding URL at http://dx.doi.org/<doi> and the whole reason you
> pay for DOIs is to support the infrastructure that makes those URLs
> work reliably.
> They've been stable for a decade, which in web years is approximately
I didn't mean that the URL will rot. I meant that a stable URL is
no guarantee that the content itself is stable. That would need
a cryptographic signature across the content, I think.
More information about the rfc-interest