Hi Eliot,

I approved a while ago. I think you mean Glenn, not Don.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [email protected]
On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 1:09 PM Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot
Lear) <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Ok.  Thanks, Lynn.
>
> Don, Phong Vo, and Landon:
>
> Please review the documents and indicate further edits or approve.
>
> Eliot
>
> On 14.01.2026 18:43, Lynne Bartholomew wrote:
>
> 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]

Reply via email to