From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc7669.txt | 451 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 451 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc7669.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc7669.txt') 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 . + 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 + . 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, + . + + [DOI-HB] International DOI Foundation, "DOI Handbook", + DOI 10.1000/182, April 2012, . + + [DOI-RA] International DOI Foundation, "DOI Registration Agencies", + July 2015, + . + + + + + + +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, + . + + [RFC-STYLE] + RFC Editor, "RFC Editor Style Guide", + . + + [RFC3650] Sun, S., Lannom, L., and B. Boesch, "Handle System + Overview", RFC 3650, DOI 10.17487/RFC3650, November 2003, + . + + [RFC3651] Sun, S., Reilly, S., and L. Lannom, "Handle System + Namespace and Service Definition", RFC 3651, + DOI 10.17487/RFC3651, November 2003, + . + + [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, + . + +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] + -- cgit v1.2.3