Re: [xml2rfc] RFC Bibtex format doi numbering incorrect

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 28 May 2017 15:00 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 D26B21205F1 for <xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 May 2017 08:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, 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=Md0yVl+M; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=gxBjY+Bn
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 COnECjC76yHf for <xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 May 2017 08:00:41 -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 2A7F51200E5 for <xml2rfc@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 May 2017 08:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 80605 invoked from network); 28 May 2017 15:00:37 -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=13adb.592ae615.k1705; bh=3TUzZxBdHqFi2GDL+hkrNC2ksO0RJGfmWHYTUUfg81s=; b=Md0yVl+MISnb+SgpkVN6ziqCEGqk3T/XxIhJ6NQLQ0NjMlCL5eEOKRXZtmuabN8JCB/nkKS2tObjsG+TgYTQMfHQp+deYBHgxDEBMlQ6p1mGdJrt58DoyepzZ5+Td943fAdfnRYfMPujfLMpu3vDwas3d+5fYlqF0n8JszxSZ1MWvyDpaYWvtVaDpkvYiwyQ9cxkIBjV1X0fury8T4ezmf9gzA1tXj73rQDFQYgt6b+IGaEjaauggUPbrV1/fswx
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=13adb.592ae615.k1705; bh=3TUzZxBdHqFi2GDL+hkrNC2ksO0RJGfmWHYTUUfg81s=; b=gxBjY+BnEnMe9H6snc9yqSL7DXcv+2iRGfsOmdQo/09gQUyiL2wwjQSfOnzV264+HFjJrkx2kAeLSqeSUmN7r0soIFlTUNO3Z8IXlVL4T6T6ZL0fpLUdxxbMaVrG0LC2qV1gZp97Tou9JwD3rS5Dzu/0xJyJCrJ5Gps7dz8rjj5jOB3iNRLiyRXH0il64ZXh3zLx8AhJVf8M4lns+9be3Xe9Fg0o1uIy5Z5wTMtdwrNgqshxY+KOzoyMYSaquaT9
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; 28 May 2017 15:00:37 -0000
Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 11:00:37 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1705281035220.45932@ary.qy>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: xml2rfc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <c08be30c-253a-47d6-a9f9-c89741073a8c@gmx.de>
References: <20170526165214.45384.qmail@ary.lan> <c08be30c-253a-47d6-a9f9-c89741073a8c@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/tWA0o3R4Ga-GEJJ5JU726oHNeIU>
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: Sun, 28 May 2017 15:00:43 -0000

>>  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.

>>  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?

R's,
John