Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

[Hector Santos <[e-mail]>]

+1 Thank you for your input.   Seems to me to be a conflict of 
interest issue. I support the basic concept but why not use a IETF 
registry instead?  Solves several of the conflict of interest 
concerns, including about 3rd party entities disappearing, losing 
support, etc.

-- 
HLS

On 9/17/2013 8:56 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Heather Flanagan can be most easily reached at
> [e-mail], the specified email address for reaching
> the rfc-editor.
> Note however that you need to be clear as to what you are asking her.
> If you are asking that she arrange for the tools to include provision
> for using ORCHIDs, that is a reasonable request.  SUch a request would
> presumably be prioritized along with the other tooling improvement
> that are under consideration.
>
> On the other hand, if youa re asking that the IETF endorse or
> encourage such uses, there are two problems.  First, the RFC Editor
> does not speak for the IETF.  You need to actually get a determination
> of IETF rough consensus on the ietf email list.  That consensus would
> need to be based on a more specific question than "do we want to allow
> ORCHIDs", and then would be judged on that question by the IETF chair.
>
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
>
> On 9/17/13 8:26 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>> On 17 September 2013 13:07, Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure much needs to be done other than talking with Heather
>>> Flanagan (the RFC Editor), getting her sign-off, and then getting
>>> it into the xml2rfc schema and noting its existence.
>>
>> Thank you. Is Heather on this list?
>>
>>> I hope that what's going on here is *not* that there's been
>>> little uptake and you're trying to promote its use.
>>
>> On the contrary; the uptake from both individuals, and organisations
>> incorporating ORCID into their publishing workflows - is impressive,
>> as you can see form reading the ORCID website & blog.
>>
>
>