Re: [xml2rfc] RFC Bibtex format doi numbering incorrect

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2017-05-28 17:00, John R Levine wrote:
>>>  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.
>>
>> Wow. Really? Why not just define the mapping precisely?
> 
> Because we are not the only people in the world who use DOIs, and the
> rule for everyone, not just us, is that they are opaque.  Our
> references are supposed to show the DOI on every document that has
> one, which includes anything published by the IEEE or ACM.  Where do
> you get those?  If you don't, there's another bug report.

What does this have to do with the mapping of RFC numbers to DOIs? I 
don't get it.

>>>  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.
>>
>> Where? I thought you just said the database is for internal use only?
> 
> Huh.  This is just a wild guess, but how about looking up the DOI in the 
> same place you get the title, authors, date and abstract.  Or are you 
> saying you compute them from the RFC number, too?

Yes, of course I do.

Best regards, Julian