[rfc-i] Proper way to include examples with yet-to-be-assigned values?
touch at isi.edu
Fri Aug 13 11:10:54 PDT 2010
On 8/13/2010 11:04 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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.
They wouldn't make sense as valid DNS entries until they were numbers,
but they could easily have appeared as [TBD-alg-a-id], [TBD-alg-b-id], etc.
I don't see a good reason that numbers *needed* to appear as numeric
values, even in the example given. Regardless, though, so long as the
author is tracking and correcting this - and explains it when making the
AUTH48 responses - a more explicit, standard mechanism doesn't seem
More information about the rfc-interest