On 10.05.2011 03:44, John C Klensin wrote:
John,
Depends on where you look. DOIs are popular in some
communities, URNs in others, and, of course, some communities
have not discovered either. For most purposes, DOIs and URNs
can be considered functionally equivalent, but one of the
differences is that if we had to pay the usual fees for DOIs to
assign them to RFCs, we might have to start charging for RFCs to
cover those costs :-). For more on the URN approach to
identifying articles, papers, and similar things, you might look
in on what the URNBIS WG is doing and why.
Reminder: we have a URN scheme of IETF documents. Maybe we should use it.
Mark's (slightly tongue in cheek, I think) suggestion of URLs
actually doesn't work because they generally identify locations
at which objects can be found, rather than the object itself
(location-independent). But that is orthogonal to the question
of preferences for DOIs versus URNs.
Well, if the organization minting the HTTP URIs is committed to
stability, they are almost as good as URNs. Or better, given the fact
that you can drop them into the address bar of a browser :-)
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
