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

[Paul Hoffman]

At 5:49 PM -0700 8/13/10, RFC Editor wrote:
>6.1.  P-256 Example
>
>   Private-key-format: v1.2
>   Algorithm: TBA-2 (ECDSAP256SHA256)
>   PrivateKey: GU6SnQ/Ou+xC5RumuIUIuJZteXT2z0O/ok1s38Et6mQ=
>
>   example.net. 3600 IN DNSKEY 257 3 TBA-2 (
>           GojIhhXUN/u4v54ZQqGSnyhWJwaubCvTmeexv7bR6edb
>           krSqQpF64cYbcB7wNcP+e+MAnLr+Wi9xMWyQLc8NAA== )
>
>   example.net. 3600 IN DS 55648 TBA-2 2 (
>           b4c8c1fe2e7477127b27115656ad6256f424625bf5c1
>           e2770ce6d6e37df61d17 )
>
>   www.example.net. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
>   www.example.net. 3600 IN RRSIG A TBA-2 3 3600 (
>           20100909100439 20100812100439 55648 example.net.
>           qx6wLYqmh+l9oCKTN6qIc+bw6ya+KJ8oMz0YP107epXA
>           yGmt+3SNruPFKG7tZoLBLlUzGGus7ZwmwWep666VCw== )

Thanks, we'll do this on the next draft and thereafter.

>It's not quite clear to me where TBA-1 is used in the text above?

It's not; it's a different algorithm. (Be glad that you don't need to understand the crypto in the docs you edit...)

>Thank you for raising this question and trying to make the updates as
>clear as possible for us.

No problem; it would be nice to make AUTH48 more pleasant for everyone.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium