Subject: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] DOI-06

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:10:35 -0500

These, I think, are the final changes this SoW needs.
I've added how the grammar for rfc-index.xml will change and an example 
of a resulting entry in that file.
Note that the addition to the grammar leaves the doi element optional. 
We _could_ require it, but I don't see a strong advantage for doing so.
I also called out that the developer will work with the RFC Editor to 
determine exactly how DOI information will be shown in the txt and html 
versions of the index.

RjS

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 21:37:21 +0200

> <xsd:element name="doi" type="xsd:string" minOccurs="0"/>

maxOccurs="1" maybe?

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 14:42:49 -0500

>> <xsd:element name="doi" type="xsd:string" minOccurs="0"/>
Hrmm.That would mean that we couldn't represent aliases in the DOI 
system if they ever happened for some reason.
None of the other elements in that list at 
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-index.xsd> currently have that 
constraint.

RjS

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 21:48:13 +0200

> system if they ever happened for some reason.

OK. Just checking that we didn't forget it.

> <http://www.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-index.xsd> currently have that

Ack.

---

From: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 09:59:13 -0700

On 7/14/14, 11:10 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> I've added how the grammar for rfc-index.xml will change and an
> example of a resulting entry in that file.
> determine exactly how DOI information will be shown in the txt and
> html versions of the index.

This looks good to me.  Can we start the community review process this
week, or would it be better to wait until after IETF 90?

Thanks,
Heather

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:00:42 -0400

> html versions of the index.

Thank you Robert.

Should "developer" be "developer(s)" ?
Should "contractor" be "contractor(s)" ?

I can see some of the tasks being done in a code sprint, or split out 
into multiple pieces.

Otherwise it looks good.

     Tony Hansen