[rfc-i] Proper way to include examples with yet-to-be-assigned values?
touch at isi.edu
Thu Aug 12 15:34:53 PDT 2010
On 8/12/2010 3:28 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 3:09 PM -0700 8/12/10, Joe Touch wrote:
>> Having just done this, I used:
> Sorry, I wasn't clear. We did "TBD" for the name of the new
> algorithm, but we had to include a number in our calculations, so we
> had to pick one.
> And, to be less obscure, see section 6
> of <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-dnssec-ecdsa-03>.
What you did seems reasonable, but I'd flag all uses with "TBD" somehow
(even as a comment on the line).
Ultimately, you would get the numbers and you would put them in during
one of the edit phases, or at least you'd be responsible for checking
during AUTH48 anyway.
More information about the rfc-interest