[rfc-i] question on latest changes in references style
johnl at taugh.com
Sun May 24 11:19:07 PDT 2015
>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
>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.
> [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
> [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.
More information about the rfc-interest