[rfc-i] DOIs and RFCs

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Wed Feb 12 08:03:05 PST 2014

On 2/12/2014 7:51 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 2/12/2014 7:47 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> (that also begs the question of what the DOI would resolve to - the
>> rfc-editor content or the tools.ietf content)
> and you left of datatracker, which is/was supposed to replace tools.ietf
> use, since it is more functional and has more features.


>> We cannot control whether DOIs will be around in 10 years. We can
>> control our own URLs.
> By that logic, we should stop writing standards that use anyone else's
> work.

I'm not against using others' standards.

I'm against unnecessarily adding a layer of indirection using yet 
another registry that doesn't add value.

If we were an organization that might not be likely to value a stable 
web presence, and didn't run our own website, then yes, offloading this 
to DOIs would add value. Thus the value for publication companies, which 
are often renamed and traded like baseball cards, and the lack of that 
value for us.

If we want to be perceived more like a journal and be more respected as 
a citation, we need to stop explaining how we're different and start 
acting more like a journal - like putting the word "Journal" in our 
title, releasing sets of RFCs monthly as part of that journal, etc.

But if we're just talking about issuing DOIs and doing nothing else, 
we're not really addressing the real issue.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list