This discussion has been very informative!
10.1364/JOCN.4.000001 (actually Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 1-14 (2012))
10.1364/JOCN.7.00A447 (actually Vol. 7, Issue 3, pp. A447-A458 (2015))
For RFCs, I actually don't mind:
10.17487/rfc1149
Since DOIs are opaque, that doesn't preclude future use of a numeric prefix as well for something completely different.
The draft should be clear about whether or not leading zeros are used for low-numbered documents.
Cheers,
Andy
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 8:29 PM, John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>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