IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xml2rfc] RFC Bibtex format doi numbering incorrect

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 31 May 2017 13:07 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
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 23C45127275 for <xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 May 2017 06:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=way6dIq6; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=twKXdrZx
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 QvB5M7ku5pe2 for <xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 May 2017 06:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (www.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::4945:4343]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B5121242EA for <xml2rfc@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 May 2017 06:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 70519 invoked from network); 31 May 2017 13:06:51 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=11375.592ebfeb.k1705; bh=fZ6lyFc2I4HIg/rQF2QrXYfTT8435qQ76sZOqK2Y958=; b=way6dIq6o1JSWKkwoeRbLTfizztFUn4MO4q0WDf2wMEQTLHh06TEaYRW+6Ym9/yvPmu5A3YRFlmqBPfienXAILyDYE0jrzUEeSq5MYCvoJN8SCwYlEDx3/X6uIRBPriG0M1Op0D+kG4SxMQaZDNV/2pXzaNyDrfhcmVMUXCpXc0BDLMxKcotuoIbTmOe6I9Ojqn2TAsoJCPI6SUK3Ilm8iVMbd/UnkjdKtbyR8Cn/jdLsWYjjBBs42FPVOcK+ryT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=11375.592ebfeb.k1705; bh=fZ6lyFc2I4HIg/rQF2QrXYfTT8435qQ76sZOqK2Y958=; b=twKXdrZx680oOGY5v7J7EBpedVp7LDYn+yiwPxD6H7CfnOXHE+Zy1UJStYHSj7tKI5GY6XG9F7w5zL5xsvJMuMyG6dUrUMqXH98YlqZZeLmw39YGDF3wqvdAbwtofs7h+I0ewOoZ1Z6vzxl6e+zIaVNp9P6wSiVaBDirFz9D973JjvoiXSc4A2TEO0peBjW7t20fYVpfLNhc5uFXNjyCYR0bxPu1a+DMnzHVEcuggdt7Pe6YxeD02PYrDFLGafvX
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 31 May 2017 13:06:51 -0000
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 09:06:50 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1705310903300.59664@ary.qy>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: xml2rfc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <ce470bca-4611-8503-9f70-0e3760299c57@gmx.de>
References: <20170530211633.65372.qmail@ary.lan> <592E00D4.6070206@levkowetz.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1705301949420.56985@ary.qy> <ce470bca-4611-8503-9f70-0e3760299c57@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xml2rfc/pWK77rVLXX4FGNyjPHjto9j2Q2g>
Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] 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: Wed, 31 May 2017 13:07:00 -0000

> So if it's obvious, why do we have published RFCs with broken DOIs? This is 
> something that could have been avoided if the formatter had done a sanity 
> check.

Beats me.  If the references had come from bibtex, they'd be right, so who 
knows what other tools they haven't been using.  As you surely know, we 
can write all the tools we want but we can't force people to use them.

I would cheerfully have written a DOI checker (a real one, not just for 
RFCs) if anyone had asked, or if I had any idea that people would so 
relentlessly invent bad ones rather than looking the d*'d things up.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email