[Tools-discuss] Interest in title-less sub-sub-sections?

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Mon, 12 April 2021 23:29 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 473463A1669 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 16:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.118
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.118 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ISygcCm2vISe for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 16:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eastern.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (eastern.birch.relay.mailchannels.net []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFCA03A1665 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 16:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost []) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ECFE703262; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 23:29:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a47.g.dreamhost.com (100-101-162-31.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local []) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D3EF7703696; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 23:29:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a47.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by (trex/6.1.1); Mon, 12 Apr 2021 23:29:10 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Tank-Bottle: 7b67287357489fa1_1618270149945_768218456
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1618270149945:3273341731
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1618270149945
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a47.g.dreamhost.com (localhost []) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a47.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82B0B8ACCA; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 16:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:subject:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s= cryptonector.com; bh=5FLPeu+R9tf6Ocn6MyZ62sOPq3I=; b=tahoxr16w85 +8SHDEHzPQ9UFdxuqHLlwlJGcQc6O95RlNvYFLZ4Yn28bmWJrpjKPn0wpNLHHYlP hblmFJ9uu2U2gTdyhVjSKR1qXts0zD3SUrbnY73jtmRIw1P+Ak6veCTAY8henVbb +jxl4+dEV3H6Gqx4RoNe43e9/7FmK3B4=
Received: from localhost (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a47.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EFB608AAE6; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 16:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 18:29:02 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a47
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: rfc-interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, tools-discuss <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20210412232901.GB9612@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/gEYD8HnCYimOeAvNgwe6AIJjmSA>
Subject: [Tools-discuss] Interest in title-less sub-sub-sections?
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 23:29:16 -0000

Consider the x.680 and x.690 series documents.  They typically have many
tiny sub-sub-sections, with many sub-sub-sections having just one or two
paragraphs and no title.

Presumably those tiny sub-sub-sections lack a title because a title
would make the documents less readable.  For tiny sub-sub-sections, the
lack of a title almost makes the sub-sub-section number akin to a
paragraph number.

E.g., x.690, where sections 8, 8.1, 8.1.1, ..., 8.19 have titles, but, ..., 8.19.1, 8.19.2, ..., do not:

   8 Basic encoding rules

   8.1 General rules for encoding

   8.1.1 Structure of an encoding The encoding of a data value shall consist of four components
   which shall appear in the following order:


   8.19 Encoding of an object identifier value

   8.19.1 The encoding of an object identifier value shall be primitive.

   8.19.2 The contents octets shall be an (ordered) list of encodings of
   subidentifiers (see 8.19.3 and 8.19.4) concatenated together.

   Each subidentifier is represented as a series of (one or more)
   octets. ...

   8.19.3 The number of subidentifiers ...

What's really nice about this is how easy it makes it to make very
specific references.  Also, because most sub-sub-sections are so short,
it is easy to refer to most every normative requirement/recommendation/

Would we need any changes to the xml2rfc schema or tooling to make this
style possible for Internet-Drafts and RFCs?