Removed the extra closing parenthesis in the "Per Section 4.12 of RFC 7322 ..." sentence.
> On Jan 8, 2026, at 9:04 AM, Lynne Bartholomew > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Landon. > > * Regarding these notes from you: > >> I agree about the use of email addresses in the document. I would STRONGLY >> prefer not to have an email address in the RFC. >> ... I would STRONGLY prefer not to have my email address listed in the RFC. > > > Per Section 4.12 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide" -- > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7322.txt), "Contact information must > include a long-lived email address". > > For now, we have listed the email address provided on > <http://www.isthe.com/chongo/address.html>; your contact information now > appears as follows. Please let us know if you would prefer to use a > different email address: > > Landon Curt Noll > Email: [email protected] > URI: http://www.isthe.com/chongo > > > * Regarding this note from you: > >> How about replacing the above "original text" with: >> >> if you use an FNV function in an application, you are kindly >> requested to send a note via the process outlined at >> <http://www.isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/fnv/index.html#history>. > > We made this update. However, we see that the provided page says > "If you use an FNV function in an application, why not tell us about it by > sending Email to: > [email protected]" > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> is the email address > that was removed yesterday per Eliot and Paul, as noted below. > > > The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9923.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9923.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9923.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9923.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9923-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9923-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9923-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9923-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9923-lastdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9923-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9923-xmldiff1.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9923-xmldiff2.html > > Thank you. > > Lynne Bartholomew > RFC Production Center > > >> On Jan 7, 2026, at 12:06 PM, Landon Curt Noll <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >>> On Jan 7, 2026, at 05:14, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 3:57 AM Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi everyone and happy new year! >>> Two points: >>> On 07.01.2026 05:01, Donald Eastlake wrote: >>>>> = = = = = >>>>> >>>>> Also, these two questions are still pending. We are fine with leaving the >>>>> email address "as is" if it still works, but we believe that the question >>>>> regarding the [Cohesia] reference needs to be resolved (perhaps, as >>>>> Donald noted earlier, it can be deleted?). Please advise: >>>>> >>>>> <!-- [rfced] Section 1.2: Please confirm that >>>>> <[email protected]> is still a valid, working email address. >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> If you use an FNV function in an application, you are kindly >>>>> requested to send an EMail about it to <[email protected]> with >>>>> "FNV hash function" forming part of the subject line. >>>>> >>>>> Donald Eastlake: I'll let other authors respond on that. --> >>>>> >>>> I believe that is OK but Landon Knoll would know best. >>> I prefer that the reference to an email address for a private concern be >>> dropped. These RFCs are mean to be timeless, and people are not. That >>> having been said, I won't stand on my head on this point. >>> >>> I agree. >> >> >> >> I agree about the use of email addresses in the document. I would STRONGLY >> prefer not to have an email address in the RFC. >> >> =-= >> >> How about replacing the above "original text" with: >> >> if you use an FNV function in an application, you are kindly >> requested to send a note via the process outlined at >> <http://www.isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/fnv/index.html#history>. >> >> =-= >> >> While we are on the subject of "RFCs are meant to be timeless, and people >> are not": >> >> Please change: >> >> Landon Curt Noll >> Cisco Systems >> 170 West Tasman Drive >> San Jose, California 95134 >> United States of America >> Phone: +1-408-424-1102 >> Email: [email protected] >> URI: http://www.isthe.com/chongo/index.html >> >> To, just: >> >> Landon Curt Noll >> URI: http://www.isthe.com/chongo >> >> Or: >> >> Landon Curt Noll URI: http://www.isthe.com/chongo/address.html >> >> I am no longer associated with Cisco: I’m retired. The FNV hash was >> developed long before I even worked for Cisco. >> >> I would STRONGLY prefer not to have my email address listed in the RFC. >> >> Please remove "[email protected]" from the draft. >>> >>>>> >>>>> <!-- [rfced] References: The provided link for [Cohesia] steers to >>>>> <https://cohesia.com/>, which is a business financing site. We could >>>>> not find a relationship to the bullet item in Section 1.2. Should a >>>>> different website be listed here? >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> * [Cohesia] MASS project server collision avoidance, >>>>> ... >>>>> [Cohesia] Cohesia, "Cohesia website", <http://www.cohesia.com/>. >>>>> >>>>> Donald Eastlake: I don't know what this reference is supposed to be. >>>>> Maybe another author can come up with information as to why we added it. >>>>> If not, it should be deleted. --> >>>>> >>>> Given that multiple attempts to find an FNV reference in the current >>>> Cohesia site, I am increasingly convinced it should just be dropped. >>>> >>> +1. >>> >>> And I agree here too. >> >> I agree as well. >> >> — Landon Curt Noll >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
