Subject: IESG Issue 21

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 09:17:36 -0400 (EDT)

> Question: Should the document be renumbered using a more conventional  
> numbering scheme?

I guess that "a more conventional numbering scheme" means having
section heads like 3.1

if that is what is meant, it woudl be better

Scott

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 11:38:33 -0400

> > Question: Should the document be renumbered using a more 
> > conventional numbering scheme?
> 
> if that is what is meant, it would be better

Yes, this is what I meant.

The current document is structured as a set of bulleted lists,
instead of a set of sub-sections.  This is different from 
most other RFCs, and it makes it more difficult to refer to 
a particular section by number -- at least I found it 
difficult when preparing my comments.

The current structure is somewhat like the structure of 
RFC 2727, but I even found the structure of RFC 2727 clearer,
because the different levels of indexing used different
formats (1., (1), a.) rather than using the same format.

Please note, though, that this was an editorial suggestion.
I don't consider this a blocking problem, and it should only
be addressed if our other discussions result take long 
enough that this can be accomplished without delaying the
document.