[rfc-i] question on latest changes in references style
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sun May 24 23:23:47 PDT 2015
On 2015-05-24 20:19, John Levine wrote:
>> Both are references to a single-RFC BCP. In one case the info URI points
>> to the RFC, in the other case to the BCP. Only in one case we see the
>> DOI entry.
>> Is this intentional?
> RFCs have DOIs, BCPs don't. Whether a particular reference is to a
> BCP or to the RFC that the BCP currently refers to is a theological
> question above my pay grade.
It would be good if we had a way to express this other than the
>> On DOIs:
>> [FIPS186] NIST, "Digital Signature Standard (DSS)", FIPS PUB
>> 186-4, July 2013,
>> I assume that the missing DOI entry is a mistake?
> One of the less attractive aspects of DOIs is that they can't decide
> whether they're Handles, resolved via the handle system that
> approximately nobody uses, or they're URLs relative to the dx.doi.org
> forwarded which approximately everyone uses. I'm reasonably sure that
> URL was in the reference target field of the reference entry. I see
> that RFCs 5559 and 5757 have similar dx.doi.org URLs, so it's not a
> new issue.
Yes. But shouldn't these get written now that we have decided that DOI
seriesNums are special?
>> [TLS12] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer
>> Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
>> DOI 10.17487/ RFC5246, August 2008,
>> Why is there white space in the DOI here?
> Looks like a typo. DOIs don't contain white space.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest