I think I partially disagree. The references to RFC5234, TR36, and TR55 are years-old dated immutable documents. These are not helpful to the reader and should be removed.
The reference to Unicode is to the latest version, a moving target guaranteed to change, and I think the statement, that we think this is safe because the referenced definitions are not expected to change, is correct and arguably adds value. The reference to XML is *not* to a moving-target latest version, for the reason noted in the reference - note that the W3C’s practice of producing “editions” of a supposedly stable “version” is controversial. Once again, I think this adds value to anyone who really cares about the XML subset this document specifies. -Tim On Aug 20, 2025 at 6:49:24 PM, Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > Authors, > > While preparing this document for publication, we internally discussed the > annotations appearing in the references. As we do not believe these are > helpful to the reader, we have removed them from the document. > > The current files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.html > > Diffs of the most recent updates: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-lastdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-lastrfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > AUTH48 diffs: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > Comprehensive diffs: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > > Please review and let us know if you have any objections. We would > appreciate an acknowledgement from at least one author before continuing > with the publication process. > > Thank you, > Sandy Ginoza > RFC Production Center > > > > On Aug 18, 2025, at 11:01 AM, Karen Moore <kmo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > > Hi Tim, > > > Great! We will proceed with the publication process. > > > Thanks to all for your time! > > > Best regards, > > > Karen Moore > > RFC Production Center > > > > > On Aug 16, 2025, at 4:44 AM, Tim Bray <tb...@textuality.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 16, 2025 at 4:27:30 AM, Karen Moore <kmo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> Tim, did you get a chance to double check the ABNF with James Manger? > Note that there were no issues with the ABNF checks on our end. > > > > > > Yes, and he reported the ABNF correct. > > > > > > -Tim > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> —Files (please refresh)— > > >> > > >> Updated XML file: > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.xml > > >> > > >> Updated output files: > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.txt > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.pdf > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.html > > >> > > >> Diff files showing all changes made during AUTH48: > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-auth48diff.html > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > >> > > >> Diff files showing all changes: > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-diff.html > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > >> > > >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9839 > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> > > >> Karen Moore > > >> RFC Production Center > > >> > > >>> On Aug 15, 2025, at 5:49 PM, Tim Bray <tb...@textuality.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> What Paul said. -Tim > > >>> > > >>> On Aug 15, 2025 at 9:48:57 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> > wrote: > > >>>> On Aug 15, 2025, at 17:46, Karen Moore <kmo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Hi Paul and Tim, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> We have noted your approvals on the AUTH48 status page < > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9839__;!!PtGJab4!7oxwV35xvNK7a5-YAwJ18sDgzernD7RGTdQBjWUZ3ZWW7y6rcYNL97wKIHgwwLghZqItgwMPZedHaSHC96i03-gMA6zozVI0uA$ > [rfc-editor[.]org]>. Please confirm if you would like to update the text > per Rob’s suggestion below. Otherwise, we will move forward with > publication. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Current (Section 3): > > >>>>> [RFC9413], "Maintaining Robust Protocols", provides a thorough > > >>>>> discussion of strategies for dealing with issues in input data. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Perhaps: > > >>>>> "Maintaining Robust Protocols” [RFC9413] provides a thorough > > >>>>> discussion of strategies for dealing with issues in input data. > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Either is fine. Please base your decision on the RFC Style Guide. If > the guide doesn't have such advice, feel free to pick one method and add it > to the style guide. > > >>>> > > >>>> --Paul Hoffman > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
