summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc7669.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc7669.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc7669.txt451
1 files changed, 451 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc7669.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc7669.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ac097f0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc7669.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,451 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board (IAB) J. Levine
+Request for Comments: 7669 Taughannock Networks
+Category: Informational October 2015
+ISSN: 2070-1721
+
+
+ Assigning Digital Object Identifiers to RFCs
+
+Abstract
+
+ This document describes the way that Digital Object Identifiers
+ (DOIs) are assigned to past and future RFCs. The DOI is a widely
+ used system that assigns unique identifiers to digital documents that
+ can be queried and managed in a consistent fashion.
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+ This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
+ published for informational purposes.
+
+ This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
+ and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to
+ provide for permanent record. It represents the consensus of the
+ Internet Architecture Board (IAB). Documents approved for
+ publication by the IAB are not a candidate for any level of Internet
+ Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
+
+ Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+ and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+ http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7669.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+ Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
+ document authors. All rights reserved.
+
+ This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
+ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
+ (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
+ publication of this document. Please review these documents
+ carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
+ to this document.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Levine Informational [Page 1]
+
+RFC 7669 DOIs for RFCs October 2015
+
+
+Table of Contents
+
+ 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
+ 2. Structure and Resolution of DOIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
+ 3. DOIs for RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
+ 4. The Process of Assigning DOIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
+ 4.1. Getting a DOI Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
+ 4.2. Retroactively Assigning DOIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+ 4.3. Assigning DOIs to New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+ 4.4. Use of DOIs in RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+ 4.5. Possible Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+ 5. Internationalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+ 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+ 7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+ IAB Members at the Time of Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+ Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
+
+1. Introduction
+
+ The Digital Object Identifier (DOI) system assigns unique identifiers
+ to digital documents that can be queried and managed in a consistent
+ fashion. The structure of DOIs is defined by ISO 26324:2012
+ [ISO-DOI] and is implemented by a group of registration agencies
+ coordinated by the International DOI Foundation.
+
+ Each DOI is associated with bibliographic metadata about the object,
+ including one or more URIs where the object can be found. The
+ metadata is stored in a public database with entries retrieved via
+ HTTP.
+
+ DOIs are widely used by publishers and consumers of technical
+ journals and other technical material published online.
+
+ Page 15 of [CITABILITY] indicates that (note that citations have been
+ omitted):
+
+ Typical web addresses are unreliable for locating online
+ resources, because they can move, change or disappear entirely.
+ But persistent identifiers are fixed, with an infrastructure that
+ allows for the location of the item to be updated. The result is
+ that the identifier can provide persistent access to the data.
+ DataCite provides such a service, and DOIs (used by DataCite) were
+ by far the identifier most commonly mentioned by interviewees,
+ closely followed by Handles (on which the DOI system is built).
+ There was a keen preference for DOIs from interviewees because
+ this is a system already used and understood by publishers for
+ traditional publications and so the barrier to uptake would
+ presumably be lower than for an entirely novel system.
+
+
+
+Levine Informational [Page 2]
+
+RFC 7669 DOIs for RFCs October 2015
+
+
+ Some scholarly publishers accept DOIs as references in published
+ documents, and some versions of BibTeX can automatically retrieve the
+ bibliographic data for a DOI and format it. DOIs may have other
+ advantages, such as making it easier to find the free online versions
+ of RFCs rather than paywalled copies when following references or
+ using some document indexes.
+
+ The benefits of DOIs apply equally to documents from all of the RFC
+ submission streams, so all RFCs are assigned DOIs.
+
+2. Structure and Resolution of DOIs
+
+ DOIs are an application of the Handle System defined by RFCs
+ [RFC3650], [RFC3651], and [RFC3652]. For example, a DOI for an RFC
+ might be as follows:
+
+ 10.17487/rfc1149
+
+ The first part of a DOI is the number 10, which means a DOI within
+ the Handle System, followed by a dot and a unique number assigned to
+ a publisher, in this case 17487. This part is the DOI prefix.
+ Following that is a slash and a text string assigned by the
+ publisher, called the DOI suffix.
+
+ DOIs are treated as opaque identifiers. The DOI suffixes assigned to
+ RFCs are currently based on the "doc-id" field of the RFC index in
+ XML (rfc-index.xml), but the suffix of future RFCs might be based on
+ something else if circumstances change. Hence, the reliable way to
+ find the DOI for an RFC is not to guess, but to look it up in the RFC
+ index or on the RFC Editor website <https://www.rfc-editor.org/>.
+ RFC references created from entries in the usual bibxml libraries
+ will have DOIs included automatically.
+
+ Although the Handle System has its own protocol described in
+ [RFC3652], the usual way to look up a DOI is to use web lookup. A
+ proposed "doi:" URN was never widely implemented, so the standard way
+ to look up a DOI is to use the public HTTP proxy at
+ <https://dx.doi.org>. The example DOI above could be looked up at:
+
+ https://dx.doi.org/10.17487/rfc1149
+
+ Whenever a publisher assigns a DOI, it provides the bibliographic
+ metadata for the object (henceforth called a document, since that is
+ what they are in this context) to its registration agency that then
+ makes it available to clients that look up DOIs. The document's
+ metadata is typically uploaded to the registration agency in XML
+ using an HTTP-based API. Users or publishing software can retrieve
+
+
+
+
+Levine Informational [Page 3]
+
+RFC 7669 DOIs for RFCs October 2015
+
+
+ the metadata by fetching the DOI's URL and using standard HTTP
+ content negotiation to request application/citeproc+json,
+ application/rdf+xml, or other bibliographic formats.
+
+ Publishers have considerable flexibility as to what resides at the
+ URI(s) to which a DOI refers. Sometimes it's the document itself,
+ while for commercial publishers it's typically a page with the
+ abstract, bibliographic information, and some way to buy the actual
+ document. Because some RFCs are in multiple formats (e.g.,
+ Postscript and text), an appropriate URI is that of the RFC Editor's
+ info page that has the document's abstract and links to the
+ document(s) in various formats. Hence, the URI above, when fetched
+ via an HTTP request that accepts text/html, redirects to:
+
+ https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1149
+
+ More information on the structure and use of DOIs is in the DOI
+ Handbook [DOI-HB].
+
+3. DOIs for RFCs
+
+ With DOIs assigned to each RFC, it is useful to include DOI
+ information in the XML bibliography as a "seriesInfo" item, so that
+ rendering engines can display it if desired. Online databases and
+ indexes that include RFCs should be updated to include the DOI, e.g.,
+ the ACM Digital Library. (A practical advantage of this is that the
+ DOI would link directly to the RFC Editor, rather than perhaps to a
+ copy of an RFC behind a paywall.)
+
+ Since RFCs are immutable, existing RFCs still don't mention their own
+ DOIs within the RFCs themselves, but putting their DOIs into indexes
+ would provide value.
+
+4. The Process of Assigning DOIs
+
+ There are three phases to assigning DOIs to RFCs: getting a DOI
+ prefix, retroactively assigning DOIs to existing documents, and
+ updating the publication process to assign DOIs as new RFCs are
+ published.
+
+4.1. Getting a DOI Prefix
+
+ There are ten registration agencies [DOI-RA] that assign DOI
+ prefixes. Most of them serve specialized audiences or limited
+ geographic areas, but there are a few that handle scholarly and
+ technical materials. All registration agencies charge for DOIs to
+ defray the cost of maintaining the metadata databases.
+
+
+
+
+Levine Informational [Page 4]
+
+RFC 7669 DOIs for RFCs October 2015
+
+
+ The RFC Editor chose CrossRef, an agency widely used by journal
+ publishers. The prices associated with CrossRef membership are on
+ the order of $660.00 per year for membership, deposit fees of $0.15
+ cents per document for a bulk upload of the backfile (the existing
+ RFCs), and $1.00 per document to deposit them as they are published.
+
+ The RFC Editor's DOI prefix is 10.17487.
+
+4.2. Retroactively Assigning DOIs
+
+ Other than paying the deposit fees, assigning DOIs to all of the
+ existing RFCs was primarily a software problem. The RFC Production
+ Center's internal database was updated to include a DOI field for
+ each RFC, the schema for rfc-index.xml was updated to include a DOI
+ field, and the scripts that create the XML and text indexes were
+ updated to include the DOI for each RFC. A specialized DOI
+ submission script extracted the metadata for all of the RFCs from the
+ XML index and submitted it to the registration agency using the
+ agency's online API.
+
+4.3. Assigning DOIs to New RFCs
+
+ As RFCs are published, the publication software assigns a DOI to each
+ new RFC. The submission script extracts the metadata for new RFCs
+ from the XML index and submits the information for new RFCs to the
+ registration agency.
+
+4.4. Use of DOIs in RFCs
+
+ The DOI agency requests that documents that are assigned DOIs in turn
+ include DOIs when possible when referring to other organizations'
+ documents. DOIs can be listed using the existing seriesInfo field in
+ the xml2rfc reference entity, and authors are requested provide DOIs
+ for non-RFC documents when possible. The RFC Production Center might
+ add missing DOIs when it's easy to do so, e.g., when the same
+ reference with a DOI has appeared in a prior RFC, or a quick online
+ search finds the DOI. Where the citation libraries include DOIs, the
+ output (references created from those citation libraries) will
+ include DOIs.
+
+ The RFC Style Guide [RFC-STYLE] has been updated to describe the
+ rules for including DOIs in the References sections of RFCs.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Levine Informational [Page 5]
+
+RFC 7669 DOIs for RFCs October 2015
+
+
+4.5. Possible Future Work
+
+ Since it is usually possible to retrieve the bibliographic
+ information for a document from its DOI (as BibTeX can do, described
+ above), it might also be worth adding this feature to xml2rfc, so a
+ reference with only a DOI could be automatically fetched and
+ expanded.
+
+5. Internationalization
+
+ Adding DOIs presents no new internationalization issues.
+
+ Since DOIs are opaque, the characters used in any particular DOI are
+ unimportant beyond ensuring that they can be represented where
+ needed. The Handle System says they are UTF-8-encoded Unicode, but
+ in practice all DOIs appear to use only printable ASCII characters.
+ The metadata for each RFC is uploaded as UTF-8-encoded XML.
+
+6. Security Considerations
+
+ The DOI system adds a new way to locate RFCs and a bibliographic
+ database containing a description of each RFC. The existing
+ locations and bibliographic info are essentially unchanged, so there
+ is no new dependency on the DOI system.
+
+ Were CrossRef or the DOI database to suffer a security breach, it is
+ hypothetically possible that users would be directed to locations
+ other than the RFC Editor's web site or would retrieve incorrect
+ bibliographic data, but the actual RFCs would remain intact.
+
+7. Informative References
+
+ [CITABILITY]
+ Kotarski, R., Reilly, S., Schrimpf, S., Smit, E., and K.
+ Walshe, "Report on best practices for citability of data
+ and on evolving roles in scholarly communication", 2012,
+ <http://www.stm-assoc.org/2012_07_10_STM_Research_Data_
+ Group_Data_Citation_and_Evolving_Roles_ODE_Report.pdf>.
+
+ [DOI-HB] International DOI Foundation, "DOI Handbook",
+ DOI 10.1000/182, April 2012, <http://www.doi.org/hb.html>.
+
+ [DOI-RA] International DOI Foundation, "DOI Registration Agencies",
+ July 2015,
+ <http://www.doi.org/registration_agencies.html>.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Levine Informational [Page 6]
+
+RFC 7669 DOIs for RFCs October 2015
+
+
+ [ISO-DOI] International Organization for Standardization (ISO), "ISO
+ 26324:2012 Information and documentation -- Digital object
+ identifier system", June 2012,
+ <http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=43506>.
+
+ [RFC-STYLE]
+ RFC Editor, "RFC Editor Style Guide",
+ <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/>.
+
+ [RFC3650] Sun, S., Lannom, L., and B. Boesch, "Handle System
+ Overview", RFC 3650, DOI 10.17487/RFC3650, November 2003,
+ <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3650>.
+
+ [RFC3651] Sun, S., Reilly, S., and L. Lannom, "Handle System
+ Namespace and Service Definition", RFC 3651,
+ DOI 10.17487/RFC3651, November 2003,
+ <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3651>.
+
+ [RFC3652] Sun, S., Reilly, S., Lannom, L., and J. Petrone, "Handle
+ System Protocol (ver 2.1) Specification", RFC 3652,
+ DOI 10.17487/RFC3652, November 2003,
+ <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3652>.
+
+IAB Members at the Time of Approval
+
+ Jari Arkko (IETF Chair)
+ Mary Barnes
+ Marc Blanchet
+ Ralph Droms
+ Ted Hardie
+ Joe Hildebrand
+ Russ Housley
+ Erik Nordmark
+ Robert Sparks
+ Andrew Sullivan (IAB Chair)
+ Dave Thaler
+ Brian Trammell
+ Suzanne Woolf
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Levine Informational [Page 7]
+
+RFC 7669 DOIs for RFCs October 2015
+
+
+Author's Address
+
+ John Levine
+ Taughannock Networks
+ PO Box 727
+ Trumansburg, NY 14886
+
+ Phone: +1 831 480 2300
+ Email: standards@taugh.com
+ URI: http://jl.ly
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Levine Informational [Page 8]
+