NIST PubID scheme: identifiers that need clarification

[ronaldtse]

A number of Tech Pubs have current pub IDs that contain both Edition/Revision and also Year. Some of them have Month information.

What should the patterns be for those? I’m listing them below where the left shows the original pub ID, the right shows a proposed PubID.

What do we do with the month when given? (still an issue in PubID 1.0)

• "NBS CIRC 13e2revjune1908”
• "NBS FIPS 89-May1981”
• "NIST IR 8170 (March 2020)"

Should we omit the year information if there is an edition number already provided? (still an issue in PubID 1.0)

• “NBS CIRC 11e2-1915” => “NBS CIRC 11e2"
• “NBS HB 44e2-1955” => “NBS HB 44e2”?

Should we omit the edition number if it is 1? (still an issue in PubID 1.0)

• “NBS SP 960-12e1” => “NBS SP 960"
• "NIST SP 260-162 2006ed.” => "NIST SP 260-162” (this is Edition 1 of SP 260-162) (now at #155)
• “NIST SP 250-29e2004” => “NIST SP 250-29" (now at #155)

Should we omit the revision number if it was mis-marked? (still an issue in PubID 1.0)

• "NIST SP 260-174r2012” => "NIST SP 260-174” (this is not a revision, this is actually Edition 1)
• "NIST SP 305-23r1992” => "NIST SP 305-23” (this is actually Edition 1)

Should we automatically assign the edition number if the edition is given as a year? (No, an edition can be yyyy or 1-9, described in #155)

• “NIST SP 250-39e2009” => “NIST SP 250-39e2” (this is Edition 2 of SP 250-39)

Sometimes revision numbers are inconsistently assigned: (still an issue in PubID 1.0, source data needs to be fixed)

• "NIST SP 800-57p1” is the base document.
• "NIST SP 800-57p1r2006” => should have been r1
• "NIST SP 800-57p1r2007” => should have been r2
• "NIST SP 800-57p1r3” => is correct.

Should the Part number, if in alphabet, be capitalised? (now decided in #154)

• “NIST SP 800-131a” => “NIST SP 800-131A”? (The base document “NIST SP 800-131a” has a R1 as “NIST SP 800-131Ar1”.)
• "NIST SP 800-38a” => "NIST SP 800-38A”? ("NIST SP 800-38a” but "NIST SP 800-38F”)

Should PubID fix minor issues like these? (still an issue in PubID 1.0, source data needs to be fixed)

• "NIST SP 800-40ver2” => "NIST SP 800-40v2”

“Part” representation sometimes goes with “p” or “pt”: (decided in #87)

• "NIST SP 800-57pt1r4” vs "NIST SP 800-57p3"

There are also some funny ones that need consideration: (still an issue in PubID 1.0, potentially data source issues)

• “NIST SP 800-27 Revision A”
• “NIST SP 800-22 Revision 1a”
• "NIST SP 800-87ver1” vs "NIST SP 800-87ver1e2006” vs "NIST SP 800-87ver1e2007”

[ronaldtse]

Updated list according to Final PubID scheme. Remaining questions/identifiers have been sent for clarification.