I have a counterproposal. [UNICODE] is cited a lot and that citation is to
the moving-target “latest” version, so I think the assertion in the
citation that we think the definitions and so on are not expected to change
does add value. So I’d like to retain that annotation.
[XML] is only cited once, in 4.2, so we could change that language to read
The XML 1.0 Specification (Fifth Edition) [XML], in its grammar
production…
That language makes it clear that we’re citing a specific immutable
document, so then we can lose the annotation in the citation.
How does that sound? -Tim
On Aug 21, 2025 at 5:24:19 PM, Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org>
wrote:
> 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
