Hi Tim and Paul, Thank you for your replies. We have restored the annotations for [XML] and [UNICODE], but please consider the following as well.
a) For the [UNICODE] annotation, we wonder about moving the text into the body of the document to appear with the terms in question (and removing the annotation). For example: Definition D9 in Section 3.4 of [UNICODE] defines “Unicode codespace” as “a range of integers from 0 to 10FFFF_16". Definition D10 defines “code point” as “Any value in the Unicode codespace”. Note that these definitions are not expected to change in future releases of the Unicode Standard. b) We are unclear on the purpose of the note for [XML]. It explains why the specific release was chosen. Should the reader check whether an updated version is applicable? 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 highlighting the restoration of the 2 annotations: 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) Thanks, Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center > On Aug 21, 2025, at 10:42 AM, Tim Bray <tb...@textuality.com> wrote: > > Oops, easy to misunderstand… > > On Aug 21, 2025 at 9:19:43 AM, Tim Bray <tb...@textuality.com> wrote: >> The references to RFC5234, TR36, and TR55 are years-old dated immutable >> documents. These are not helpful to the reader and should be removed. > > Sorry, I the references are fine and represent WG consensus. I was talking > about the annotations, which should be removed. -T > >> >> 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
