[rfc-i] question on latest changes in references style

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sat May 23 23:54:09 PDT 2015


Hi there,

I've got a few questions regarding the new practice of including 
rfc-editor URIs to info pages, and inserting DOIs.

In RFC 7540, I see (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540#section-12>):

    [RFC2119]     Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                  Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
                  RFC2119, March 1997,
                  <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

and

    [BCP90]       Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
                  Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90,
                  RFC 3864, September 2004,
                  <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp90>.

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?

Is there a rule that a tool can follow to check these? As far as I can 
tell, the only difference in the XML is the *name* of the reference, 
which is *not* supposed to change the formatting of the reference.

On DOIs:

    [FIPS186]     NIST, "Digital Signature Standard (DSS)", FIPS PUB
                  186-4, July 2013,
                  <http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.FIPS.186-4>.

I assume that the missing DOI entry is a mistake?

Also, in:

    [TLS12]       Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer
                  Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
                  DOI 10.17487/ RFC5246, August 2008,
                  <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.

Why is there white  space in the DOI here?

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list