Tom Petch wrote: > I note that this will also give us a URN (RFC3044).
What's the point of another URN in addition to urn:ietf:rfc:2648 ? The ISSN idea is fine if this gets RFCs cataloged in places where they are not available at the moment. For the "info-handles" and DOI ideas I don't understand why the IETF would wish to spend money for "yet another number" for RFCs. See Henning's and Marshall's articles, $1500 per year. I'm not at all convinced that this is a good idea. Frank _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
