[rfc-i] Citation with DOI

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Tue Sep 30 16:24:45 PDT 2014

Hash: SHA1

On 9/30/14, 4:06 PM, Sean Leonard wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2014, at 3:58 PM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
> <rse at rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> [SNIP]
>> The CMOS uses the doi: notation and states "Authors should include
>> DOIs rather than URLs for sources that make them readily
>> available." Using DOIs is new for many members of this community,
>> however, so I think including a URI in addition to the doi:
>> structure would be acceptable.
>> So,
>> [HASHCLASH] Stevens, M., Lenstra, A., and B. de Weger,
>> "Chosen-prefix Collisions for MD5 and Colliding X.509 Certificates
>> for Different Identities", IACR EUROCRYPT 2007, Lecture Notes in
>> Computer Science 4515 1-22, 2007,
>> <http://www.win.tue.nl/hashclash/ChosenPrefixCollisions/>,
>> doi:10.1007/978-3-540-72540-4_1.
>> is fine for now.  We're still testing out guidance here, so this
>> may change in the future.
> Ok, I will use that format. Thanks.
> Another thing: the article(s) that I am citing actually have a lot of
> reference numbers, including ISBNs and ISSNs. It is no longer
> intuitively obvious to me which ones should be included. The fact
> that RFCs are now getting DOI numbers is pretty crazy—on top of the
> ISSNs.

It's not too crazy, really.  Different reference numbers are trying to
target different things.  In our case, while we have an ISSN, that only
identifies the RFC Series as a whole, not specific documents within the
Series.  DOIs will identify individual publications within the Series in
such a way as to help other communities find and use our documents.  In
various academic circles, if it doesn't have a DOI, it doesn't count as
a publication towards tenure!  Crazy talk, but that's academia for you.

> If all are available, is there a hierarchy of which should be
> included, and in what order? Or do we just go with what we feel is
> the most appropriate for the particular case?

Regardless of what information is provided, at the end of the day, a
reference serves two purposes: it recognizes material used, and it helps
a reader find that material on their own.  If you have a document (not
an RFC) that happens to include a wide variety of reference numbers, I'd
suggest simplifying the reference down to author(s), title, book or
journal name and edition, publication date (if available), and a URL (if
available) or DOI (if available).  Just enough to reasonably identify it
and help someone find it.  RFC 7322 should give you some guidance on the
structure for references of non-RFCs.  If you need further guidance,
post here or drop a note to rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org.

Does that help?
- -Heather
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20140930/1ef5dd6e/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list