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

Bob Hinden bob.hinden at gmail.com
Thu Aug 12 17:09:41 PDT 2010


>> Or were you asking a different question?
> A different question. Even if I use TBDs as above, we need to put some numbers in our examples because the examples use numeric entities. This means that the examples will possibly change at some point during the RFC editing process, and likely not until AUTH48.
> This kind of technical change is probably acceptable in AUTH48 because it is inevitable; the basic question is how to flag it so that it stands out to the Production Center before then.

OK, I understand.  How about a something like TBA-1, TBA-2, etc. in the IANA considerations section and then use <TBD-1> in the text where it is needed.  I wouldn't think this is too difficult for the RFC-Editor to fill in during the editing phase.  You could also add a note to the RFC editor in the document describing what needs to be done.

Does that work?


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list