IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Patrik Fältström " <paf@frobbit.se> Sat, 04 July 2015 07:05 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
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 945E71A88B3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jul 2015 00:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.961
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 zbp-w2SADLP7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jul 2015 00:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [85.30.129.185]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5975F1A88B8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Jul 2015 00:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.46] (frobbit.cust.teleservice.net [85.30.128.225]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C4FFA212E9; Sat, 4 Jul 2015 09:05:19 +0200 (CEST)
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Subject: Re: Call for comment: <draft-iab-doi-04.txt> (Assigning Digital Object Identifiers to RFCs)
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2015 09:05:18 +0200
Message-ID: <F927BA40-802C-41F4-824C-DF9C2710F176@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <20150704002936.1550.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <20150704002936.1550.qmail@ary.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_9B110B06-AE15-4896-98C0-44A3F1385AD2_="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5102)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/zeR6S6HbBvyfBC_lnBLIVEgGlkA>
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 07:05:22 -0000

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