Hi, Landon. Per your latest note, we updated the paragraph at the end of Section 1.3 to use <http://www.isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/fnv/index.html#address> instead of <http://www.isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/fnv/index.html#history>.
> 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>. 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 13, 2026, at 1:54 AM, Landon Curt Noll <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hello Lynne Bartholomew, > > I do not wish to have an email address in the paragraph at the end of Section > 1.3. > > My request is to ether use the URL: > > http://www.isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/fnv/index.html#address > > in the paragraph at the end of Section 1.3, > or some other non-email method of contact, > or failing that to remove the paragraph please. > > Please advise. > > — Landon Noll > >> On Jan 12, 2026, at 09:34, Lynne Bartholomew >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> 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]
