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
