Hi, Eliot and Landon. We see that Landon's email of yesterday (pasted below under the "= = = = = = = =", for context) said "Please remove "[email protected]" from the draft".
Please confirm that we now want to list "[email protected]" as Landon's email address in this document. Thank you. RFC Editor/lb > On Jan 8, 2026, at 11:43 AM, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yeah to be clear, the email address we're discussing here is a personal one, > and Landon has a specific address that he wants used, which is > [email protected]. Mailing lists dedicated to support are a different > matter. > Eliot > On 08.01.2026 20:40, Landon Curt Noll wrote: >> Please NO!!! >> >> >>> On Jan 8, 2026, at 09:04, 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 >>> >> NO!!! DO NOT use [email protected] !!!! >> >> PLEASE !!! >> >> Use [email protected] >> >> — Landon Noll >> >> = = = = = = = = > From: Landon Curt Noll <[email protected]> > Subject: LANDON's reply to Re: [ISE] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9923 > <draft-eastlake-fnv-35> for your review > Date: January 7, 2026 at 12:06:55 PM PST > To: "Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)" <[email protected]>, > Paul Wouters <[email protected]> > Cc: Donald Eastlake <[email protected]>, Lynne Bartholomew > <[email protected]>, [email protected], > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Glenn Fowler > <[email protected]>, Phong Vo <[email protected]>, > [email protected] > > 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]
