IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Call for comment: <draft-iab-doi-04.txt> (Assigning Digital Object Identifiers to RFCs)

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Sat, 04 July 2015 07:45 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADD5A1A8997 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jul 2015 00:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3cyhYK9nwMcv for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jul 2015 00:45:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33AD11A8969 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Jul 2015 00:45:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1844; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1435995939; x=1437205539; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=vabnfP2pWaxFxWsKaOgE2L5erOV/V7Q53DYFWMlC1xA=; b=cbMFO8+7YGualCE66lYVmydAJYeUzx5Pah7p16MwjcbBPsmDypv8j1px HrTkrnOBe8WkzDBAZUPnfKudtrSAyi0M4fLXWHkifMC8YrY/rjbwxNiUp PD3dCyDLszIBBynvCnWXI2KKwSa5j2C+t6IKbUShkfYj4+iydUCmmTiaE 0=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CeBACYjpdV/xbLJq1bh2XCFgKBbwEBAQEBAYELhCQBAQQdBlUBEAsSBgkWCwICCQMCAQIBNw4GAQwBBwEBiCuzW5YVAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF4tLhQYHgmiBQwEElBWCK4FSh2uBOoQVgm2QGiaCCQIdFYFAPIJ8AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,404,1432598400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="549799893"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Jul 2015 07:45:36 +0000
Received: from [10.61.97.31] (dhcp-10-61-97-31.cisco.com [10.61.97.31]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t647jZxE024564; Sat, 4 Jul 2015 07:45:36 GMT
Message-ID: <55978F22.8060409@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2015 09:45:38 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Subject: Re: Call for comment: <draft-iab-doi-04.txt> (Assigning Digital Object Identifiers to RFCs)
References: <20150704002936.1550.qmail@ary.lan> <F927BA40-802C-41F4-824C-DF9C2710F176@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <F927BA40-802C-41F4-824C-DF9C2710F176@frobbit.se>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pSJOeGbSBN8IHvfcVjLRooI6XNi5Edu25"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/AQGgrGDLtw3vKSETzj4nXFojV8o>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2015 07:45:40 -0000

This is what an entry in rfc-index.txt looks like these days:

7556 Multiple Provisioning Domain Architecture. D. Anipko, Ed.. June
     2015. (Format: TXT=59307 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL) (DOI:
     10.17487/RFC7556)

Eliot

On 7/4/15 9:05 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> On 4 Jul 2015, at 2:29, John Levine wrote:
>
>> In retrospect, rather than making them look like RFC numbers I should
>> have used a pseudo-random 10 digit hash of the date, authors, and
>> document title so people would stop complaining about RFC123 vs.
>> RFC0123.
> Hmm...are DOIs _already_ allocated for [some] RFCs or not?
>
> I felt at first that was NOT the case.
>
> Then I understood this draft is documentation of existing practice.
>
> Then now I see between the lines that is not the case, as it is questioned what the format should be.
>
> Can someone please clarify?
>
>    Patrik

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email