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

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sun May 24 23:23:47 PDT 2015


On 2015-05-24 20:19, John Levine wrote:
>> 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?
>
> RFCs have DOIs, BCPs don't.  Whether a particular reference is to a

Yes.

> BCP or to the RFC that the BCP currently refers to is a theological
> question above my pay grade.

It would be good if we had a way to express this other than the 
reference name.

>> 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?
>
> 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
> new issue.

Yes. But shouldn't these get written now that we have decided that DOI 
seriesNums are special?

>>     [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?
>
> Looks like a typo.  DOIs don't contain white space.

Best regards, Julian



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list