[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
Fri Jun 27 16:56:06 PDT 2014

On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 01:58 +0000, John Levine wrote:
> >Not directly, but it occurs to me that if figures are to be kept
> >separately, there had better be some way of referencing them through the
> >proposed DOI scheme.  Currently this only deals with the base documents.
> The DOI refers to the document, not to a file.  Unless something has
> changed lately, which would surprise me, the plan is for the DOI URL
> to redirect to the RFC Editor's info page for the RFC, which can have
> links to as many auxiliary files as it needs to.
> R's,
> John

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.  The master XML2RFC document would
pull in however many parts it needed as figures.  These would be kept as
separate files for the new form of RFC.  Yes, the info page could indeed
refer to them but if the document was conforming to the DOI
specification, a user or tool would expect the figures to have metadata
that expresses the doi:IsPartOf relationship (see Section 5.6 of the DOI
Handbook at 

See also "Part" and "LexicalCreationPart" in the DOI data dictionary.

Tools that turn the XML2RFC input format into integrated single
documents/files would need to grab all the parts. Having them referred
to by doi: identifiers would be uniform and avoid issues if the RFC
editor web site needed to be reorganized at some time in the future.


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?

Likewise how would you download the complete I-D (or RFC) in its 'raw'
Same possibilities?


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list