[rfc-i] Proper way to include examples with yet-to-be-assigned values?

[Julian Reschke]

On 13.08.2010 19:53, John Levine wrote:
>> For drafts that reach the RFC Editor in XML markup, the obvious solution
>> would be to augment xml2rfc's vocabulary so that these TBDs stand out
>> during editing, and it can easily be checked that they are gone once the
>> spec is finished.
>
> It is my impression that live human staff at the RFC Editor hand-edits
> every RFC, so whatever we do has to be evident to humans, not
> necessarily perfectly parsable by computers.
>
> For rather a long time I've been using the string TBD in capital
> letters, as something that editors can understand and easily search
> for.  Why do we need anything fancier than that?

If I understood Paul's example 
(<http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hoffman-dnssec-ecdsa-03.txt>) correctly, 
there are examples where the to-be-assigned code points need to appear 
as numbers, so TBD wouldn't work there.

Best regards, Julian