[rfc-i] Proper way to include examples with yet-to-be-assigned values?
bob.hinden at gmail.com
Thu Aug 12 16:42:13 PDT 2010
On Aug 12, 2010, at 4:13 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 3:34 PM -0700 8/12/10, Joe Touch wrote:
>> 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.
> This entails making significant technical changes during AUTH48. That is unseemly, to say the least. Thus my questions about a better way to do it.
From a draft in 6man:
The IANA is requested to assign a new IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option
type for the DNSSL option defined in this document:
Option Name Type
DNSSL option (TBD)
Usually by the time it gets to AUTH48 IANA has assigned the option value and the RFC editor has filled it in.
These were for an existing registry.
Or were you asking a different question?
More information about the rfc-interest