Hi, Landon. Great; thanks for the ack. Lynne Bartholomew RFC Production Center
> On Jan 13, 2026, at 3:52 PM, Landon Curt Noll <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hello Lynne Bartholomew, > > The text looks good, thanks for your help! > > — Landon Noll > >> On Jan 13, 2026, at 09:31, Lynne Bartholomew >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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]
