IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xml2rfc] RFC Bibtex format doi numbering incorrect

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 30 May 2017 00:33 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 647A9126CBF for <xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 May 2017 17:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 RzJJB8fV03sH for <xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 May 2017 17:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (w6.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 00CB8126BF7 for <xml2rfc@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 May 2017 17:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 61906 invoked from network); 30 May 2017 00:33:53 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 30 May 2017 00:33:53 -0000
Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 00:33:31 -0000
Message-ID: <20170530003331.61349.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: xml2rfc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <592CA7B2.1070506@levkowetz.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xml2rfc/qjFu3i2TLttQGbdYEYEdppgb7u0>
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: Tue, 30 May 2017 00:33:56 -0000

In article <592CA7B2.1070506@levkowetz.com> you write:
>So you are saying that even if the RFC-Editor wished to define and publish
>an algorithmic mapping between RFC numbers and DOI identifiers, they would
>not be permitted to do so?

Not unless they could persuade the IAB to change RFC 7669.  Since that would
be a bad idea, I doubt they would do so.

What is the problem with looking up DOIs the same way we look up the
title, abstract, and umpteen other chunks of text in a reference?
Everyone else in the world does it.  Why are we so bleeping special?

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email