Re: [xml2rfc] RFC Bibtex format doi numbering incorrect

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

> Whatever was used, once you wrote the code, wouldn't it make sense to
> publish where/how lookups should happen?  Has this been done?

Of course.  It's in RFC 7669.

> And no matter how opaque the DOI series identifiers are in general, there's
> still nothing that prevents the RFC Editor from _having_ a defined mapping
> from RFC numbers to DOI and vice versa, if a decision is made that this
> would be helpful, right?

No.  I really, really, wish that people would stop trying to relitigate 
this settled fact.  We had the exact same argument before the IAB 
published RFC 7669 which says:

    DOIs are treated as opaque identifiers.  The DOI suffixes assigned to
    RFCs are currently based on the "doc-id" field of the RFC index in
    XML (rfc-index.xml), but the suffix of future RFCs might be based on
    something else if circumstances change.  Hence, the reliable way to
    find the DOI for an RFC is not to guess, but to look it up in the RFC
    index or on the RFC Editor website <https://www.rfc-editor.org/>.
    RFC references created from entries in the usual bibxml libraries
    will have DOIs included automatically.

Among the reasons not to change it is that RFCs can contain references to 
other kinds of documents, some of those other things also have DOIs, and 
those DOIs always have to be looked up.  I hope we agree that code that 
tried to guess some DOIs while looking up others would be fragile and 
likely to break in obscure ways.

As far as I can tell all of the code around the IETF that handles DOIs 
does it correctly except for Julian's, and by this time he could have 
fixed it with less effort than he's spent arguing that he doesn't want to.

R's,
John