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

["Patrik Fältström " <[e-mail]>]

On 4 Jul 2015, at 9:45, Eliot Lear wrote:

> 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)

Ok, then the format is already decided (although implicitly), and should not be changed.

   Patrik

> 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