Re: [xml2rfc] RFC Bibtex format doi numbering incorrect

["John Levine" <[e-mail]>]

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>I think that's right.  The code which generates the references on
>tools.ietf.org is old TCL code which I very very happily leave to
>Tony Hansen to poke at when necessary.  I'll have a look at the
>datatracker code to see what happens there.

I updated the scripts that create the bibtex files to add the DOIs.  I
don't have the code handy (my copy is on a backup disk) but it
definitely was not in TCL.  Some of the code was PHP, some was perl,
and the changes were easy to add the DOI field to rfc-index.xml and to
add the DOIs to the bibtex files extracted from rfc-index.xml.

Incidentally, the bit about opaque identifiers wasn't obscure or
accidental.  There was a long thread on the ietf list, starting here.
Too much of it was rehashing misconceptions about DOIs, but a certain
amount was about the DOI format.  I shoulda taken Klensin's advice not
to make them look sort of mnemonic.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/sJWpYADQrnzfqI8kMIaxtGSsreQ
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/N2_jzaYayp7396GAu_cr6GddUKA

>> Now, because I enjoy a good rabbit hole as much as the next person: Henrik,
>> the RFC Editor can define and publish such an algorithmic mapping, of
>> course.  If the goal is just to document the way in which they generate
>> DOIs, it's potentially interesting, but not really useful to anyone outside
>> the editors.  If, by publishing it, the RFC Editor wishes to make it
>> possible for consumers to correctly "guess" a DOI, then the document would
>> have to update RFC 7669 (with all the process and consensus that that would
>> involve.)
>
>Which is what I'd expect, and a very sensible response.

I'm relieved we all agree about that.

R's,
John