Hi, Landon and Donald. Landon, 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>. > Do you still want to restore this paragraph at the end of Section 1.3? One option would be to use the <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> email address instead of <http://www.isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/fnv/index.html#history>. Please let us know your preference. Possibly (per the original, but using <[email protected]> instead of the fnvhash-mail address): 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, we have corrected the code per your note below. Apologies, as it appears that we accidentally removed one backslash during a previous update (between Dec. 22 and Dec. 23). The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser, review our latest updates carefully, and let us know any concerns: 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 Donald, we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9923 Thank you! Lynne Bartholomew RFC Production Center > From: Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: *LANDON, PAY ATTENTION* Re: [ISE] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9923 > <draft-eastlake-fnv-35> for your review > Date: January 8, 2026 at 5:46:38 PM PST > To: Lynne Bartholomew <[email protected]> > Cc: "Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)" <[email protected]>, > [email protected], [email protected], "[email protected]" > <[email protected]>, [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] > > Hi Lynne, > > Thanks for the good news that "makefile" is approved as a source code type. > > I have extracted the source code from today's .txt version and found > that there is one missing character. In section 8.3, search for > "#define TestInitBasis". That area of the code is defining a number of > C preprocessor macros. These definitions are separated by a black > line. If you look at them, you will note that, for each definition, > all of the lines end with a backslash ("\") except the last line of > each definition. In the definition of TestInitBasis this \ is missing > at the end of the second line. With the addition of that character, my > tests of the code all work. > > I approve publication of this version with the one character fix above. > > Thanks, > Donald > =============================== > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA > [email protected] > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 12:46 PM Lynne Bartholomew > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, Eliot. Correct! All of our questions have been resolved. >> >> Before we can move this document forward for publication, we will need all >> authors to approve this document for publication in its current form -- >> assuming that no further changes are needed. >> >> We will then need your final approval. >> >> Here's the link to the AUTH48 status page: >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9923 >> >> Thanks for asking about this! >> >> Lynne Bartholomew >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Jan 7, 2026, at 9:09 AM, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Lynne, >>> Just to confirm state, you re now looking for author and ISE apprvoals, >>> right? >>> Eliot >>> On 07.01.2026 18:02, Lynne Bartholomew wrote: >>>> Hi, Donald, Eliot, and Paul. >>>> >>>> Thank you for the emails. We have removed the last paragraph of Section >>>> 1.3 (the pointer to the "fnvhash-mail" email address) as well as the >>>> citation and listing for [Cohesia]. (Removing mention of [Cohesia] >>>> provides the side benefit of also removing any question of what "MASS" >>>> stands for.) >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> Side note: Good news -- "makefile" has been added as an approved >>>> sourcecode type on >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>. >>>> >>>> Thanks again! >>>> >>>> Lynne Bartholomew >>>> RFC Production Center > On Jan 8, 2026, at 12:42 PM, Landon Curt Noll <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hello RFC Editor/lb, > > If I need to have an email address for myself in the document, please use > "[email protected]". > > The previous request was under the impression that I could go without an > email address in the document. > However, if I must have an email address for myself in the document, please > use "[email protected]". > > — Landon Noll > >> On Jan 8, 2026, at 12:02, Lynne Bartholomew >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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]
