To be clear - I’m not asking for any particular change, I’m asking for clarity.
Cheers, Sent from my iPhone > On 29 Oct 2025, at 6:58 pm, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 29, 2025, at 08:11, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> I don't see why they would change. It would be a nuisance, and it would be a >> bug to change the DOIs. Code I've written has inserted/removed leading zeros >> for RFCs <1000, but should work seamlessly when RFC10000 appears. > > +1 > > I think the implementation would be: "RFC%04d” > > So we do RFCnnnn for N < 10k, and the necessary number of digits for N ≥ 10k. > This should work throughout the system for the stable identifiers. > > We are referencing older RFCs in the text with anchors like “RFC20” inside > newer I-Ds and RFCs, but that stays internal to that document; the DOI > remains 10.17487/RFC0020 . > > Grüße, Carsten > _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
