IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xml2rfc] [django-project] RFC Bibtex format doi numbering incorrect

Stefan Viergutz <viergutz@informatik.uni-bonn.de> Fri, 26 May 2017 06:32 UTC

Return-Path: <viergutz@informatik.uni-bonn.de>
X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F484120725 for <xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 May 2017 23:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Bo3tUxeYkYP5 for <xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 May 2017 23:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from postfix.iai.uni-bonn.de (postfix.iai.uni-bonn.de [131.220.8.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0841B128D69 for <xml2rfc@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 May 2017 23:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-IAI-Env-From: <viergutz@informatik.uni-bonn.de> : [217.246.120.85]
Received: from [192.168.178.55] (pD9F67855.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.246.120.85]) by postfix.iai.uni-bonn.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CD3B5C442; Fri, 26 May 2017 08:31:56 +0200 (MEST) (envelope-from viergutz@informatik.uni-bonn.de) (envelope-to VARIOUS) (3) (internal use: ta=1, tu=1, te=1, am=P, au=viergutz)
From: Stefan Viergutz <viergutz@informatik.uni-bonn.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, xml2rfc@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 08:32:00 +0200
Message-ID: <15c43746300.281d.7a19c564b98a554439c08072c0c083c8@informatik.uni-bonn.de>
In-Reply-To: <12a1e67f-abb4-575a-1625-c8a31c677e62@gmx.de>
References: <15c2788f4d0.281d.7a19c564b98a554439c08072c0c083c8@informatik.uni-bonn.de> <b87d41d8-c4ec-1e35-de81-eb823152c467@nostrum.com> <12a1e67f-abb4-575a-1625-c8a31c677e62@gmx.de>
User-Agent: AquaMail/1.9.1-360 (build: 100900101)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xml2rfc/R2hvaj-wSIG1AKXPwts3sMn4C08>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 26 May 2017 07:14:36 -0700
Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] [django-project] RFC Bibtex format doi numbering incorrect
X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: <xml2rfc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xml2rfc>, <mailto:xml2rfc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/xml2rfc/>
List-Post: <mailto:xml2rfc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xml2rfc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc>, <mailto:xml2rfc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 06:32:01 -0000

The documents are registered with the DOI-Suffix RFC#### with four digits 
(e.g. RFC0001),
but in the Bibtex Files are no leading zeros for the DOI-Suffix (e.g. RFC1).

see source:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1/bibtex/

compare doi registration :
https://doi.org/10.17487/rfc0001
and bibtex entry(not found):
https://doi.org/10.17487/rfc1

Only the Bibtex file on the datatracker include the erroneous Identifier, 
rfc-editor displays the correct Identifier.
It seems to me there is a bug in the generation of the Bibtex-files.

The DOI is based on the doc-id from the rfc-index.xml. with the omnipresent 
format "RFCnnnn".
Reference:
Assigning Digital Object Identifiers to RFCs
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7669/

For future RFCs (10000+) could be worth looking into
if five digits could cause some trouble for the information systems.


Best Regards,

Stefan Viergutz



On May 25, 2017 23:19:23 Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> 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?
>
> Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email