Re: [xml2rfc] RFC Bibtex format doi numbering incorrect

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

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>On 2017-05-25 21:49, Robert Sparks wrote:
>> Forwarding to what I hope is the best list...
>
>Out of curiosity: why is it incorrect? Do we have a precise description 
>about what the format should be? Hopefully including RFC#s > 9999?

DOIs are opaque identifiers.  The DOI of any RFC is whatever is in the
DOI field of the RFC Editor's database.  Any code that attempts to
guess the DOI from the RFC number is broken.

The DOI gemeration code uses the editor database internal identifier
as the last component of the DOI, because the code was easy to write.
Those identifiers currently all look like RFCnnnn but they may change
at any time without notice, since they're purely for the editor's
internal use.  In retrospect, using them was a mistake.  I should have
used something obviously opaque like a hash of the title and issue
date for the DOI.

In response to the question of what DOIs of RFCs past RFC9999 will be,
it doesn't matter.  If your code tries to guess, it is still broken.
The DOI is whatever the DOI is.  Don't guess, look it up.

R's,
John