>Can you explain where such a suggestion is made? As to the form that >comes AFTER the prefix, THAT is worthy of discussion, but that indeed >may be too late. As I note in the draft, the part after the prefix is opaque. The DOIs that the ACM assigns are two numbers that have no connection to anything else I can figure out. The IEEE uses some combination of a short abbreviation of the journal name, the year, and a sequence number that does not tell you what issue the article is in. In retrospect, rather than making them look like RFC numbers I should have used a pseudo-random 10 digit hash of the date, authors, and document title so people would stop complaining about RFC123 vs. RFC0123. R's, John