Re: [xml2rfc] RFC Bibtex format doi numbering incorrect

[[e-mail] (Dale R. Worley)]

Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> writes:
> I still don't get why we just define the mapping precisely.

Let us at least state this position correctly.  The word is not
"precisely", since any well-defined mapping between RFCs and DOIs is
"precise", and the mapping defined in rfc-index.txt is well-defined.
The word you want is "algorithmically", and in particular in the sense
that one can predict the DOI that will be assigned to an RFC that does
not yet exist, based on its number.

Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]> writes:
> So you are saying that even if the RFC-Editor wished to define and publish
> an algorithmic mapping between RFC numbers and DOI identifiers, they would
> not be permitted to do so?

The Editor can publish whatever documentation they want to of their
current processes.  What they can't do is commit themselves to hold to
any particular algorithm for the indefinite future; what they say is not
a contract with the user.  Only the IAB can do that, and it hasn't.

"John R Levine" <[e-mail]> writes:
> The way you validate a DOI is easy: you dereference it.  If the DOI is 
> 10.1234/something, you look up https://dx.doi.org/10.1234/something.  If 
> it's valid, you'll get something back, if it isn't, you won't.  If your 
> query accepts accept application/rdf+xml you will get back the document's 
> bibliographic info in XML.

Heh...  Liking to nit-pick requirement statements, I would revise this
to "you dereference it and verify that the bibliographic information you
obtain matches that of the document you think the DOI is for".

Dale