Re: ISSN for RFC Series under Consideration

Dave Crocker <> Wed, 21 May 2008 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C48E3A6A1E; Wed, 21 May 2008 12:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 474BA3A6905; Wed, 21 May 2008 12:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rIiy3nPG-E+W; Wed, 21 May 2008 12:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53D3A3A6810; Wed, 21 May 2008 12:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m4LJaoJM004551 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 21 May 2008 12:36:55 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 12:36:49 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF Discussion <>
Subject: Re: ISSN for RFC Series under Consideration
References: <> <p06240813c45a240358e7@[]> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/7200/Wed May 21 11:42:13 2008 on
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Wed, 21 May 2008 12:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: IAOC <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Steve Crocker wrote:
> Naw.  The ISSN has to be on the document itself.  As you point out,  
> this isn't something to be done with Internet Drafts, so it falls  
> naturally to the RFC Editor, not to the individual authors.

The benefit of the new number requires that folk know about it, which means we 
need to make sure it is as visible as possible.  So, I agree it has to be on 
individual documents.

The burden of providing pro forma details in an RFC has increasingly fallen to 
authors in recent years, with the RFC Editor having to do less editing (and, 
on could argue, should continue in that direction.)

Happily, xml2rfc makes this a highly tolerable burden.

So Paul is correct that author tools need to be updated, but since 
registration with the US LoC is of long-term benefit, and the change is small, 
it's difficult to view that rather burden as onerous.


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
IETF mailing list