Hi Tim, Thanks for working with us on this. We have updated the document as described and posted the revised files here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.html
Diffs showing most recent updates only: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) Note: The diffs show the annotation being removed from XML. It does show the addition of the annotation to XML because it had been restored in the previous update. AUTH48 diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Comprehensive diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Please confirm that you are ok with this version, and we’ll continue with the publication process. Thank you! Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center > On Aug 21, 2025, at 3:27 PM, Tim Bray <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have a counterproposal. [UNICODE] is cited a lot and that citation is to > the moving-target “latest” version, so I think the assertion in the citation > that we think the definitions and so on are not expected to change does add > value. So I’d like to retain that annotation. > > [XML] is only cited once, in 4.2, so we could change that language to read > > The XML 1.0 Specification (Fifth Edition) [XML], in its grammar > production… > > That language makes it clear that we’re citing a specific immutable document, > so then we can lose the annotation in the citation. > > How does that sound? -Tim > > On Aug 21, 2025 at 5:24:19 PM, Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hi Tim and Paul, >> >> Thank you for your replies. We have restored the annotations for [XML] and >> [UNICODE], but please consider the following as well. >> >> a) For the [UNICODE] annotation, we wonder about moving the text into the >> body of the document to appear with the terms in question (and removing the >> annotation). For example: >> >> Definition D9 in Section 3.4 of [UNICODE] defines “Unicode codespace” >> as “a range of integers from 0 to 10FFFF_16". Definition D10 defines >> “code point” as “Any value in the Unicode codespace”. Note that these >> definitions are not expected to change in future releases of the Unicode >> Standard. >> >> >> b) We are unclear on the purpose of the note for [XML]. It explains why the >> specific release was chosen. Should the reader check whether an updated >> version is applicable? >> >> >> The current files are available here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.html >> >> Diffs highlighting the restoration of the 2 annotations: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-lastdiff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> AUTH48 diffs: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-auth48diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by >> side) >> >> Comprehensive diffs: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> >> Thanks, >> Sandy Ginoza >> RFC Production Center >> >> >> >>> On Aug 21, 2025, at 10:42 AM, Tim Bray <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Oops, easy to misunderstand… >>> >>> On Aug 21, 2025 at 9:19:43 AM, Tim Bray <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > The references to RFC5234, TR36, and TR55 are years-old dated immutable >>> > documents. These are not helpful to the reader and should be removed. >>> >>> Sorry, I the references are fine and represent WG consensus. I was talking >>> about the annotations, which should be removed. -T >>> >>> > >>> > The reference to Unicode is to the latest version, a moving target >>> > guaranteed to change, and I think the statement, that we think this is >>> > safe because the referenced definitions are not expected to change, is >>> > correct and arguably adds value. >>> > >>> > The reference to XML is not to a moving-target latest version, for the >>> > reason noted in the reference - note that the W3C’s practice of producing >>> > “editions” of a supposedly stable “version” is controversial. Once >>> > again, I think this adds value to anyone who really cares about the XML >>> > subset this document specifies. >>> > >>> > -Tim >>> > >>> > On Aug 20, 2025 at 6:49:24 PM, Sandy Ginoza >>> > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> Authors, >>> >> >>> >> While preparing this document for publication, we internally discussed >>> >> the annotations appearing in the references. As we do not believe these >>> >> are helpful to the reader, we have removed them from the document. >>> >> >>> >> The current files are available here: >>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.xml >>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.txt >>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.pdf >>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.html >>> >> >>> >> Diffs of the most recent updates: >>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-lastdiff.html >>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-lastrfcdiff.html (side by >>> >> side) >>> >> >>> >> AUTH48 diffs: >>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-auth48diff.html >>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by >>> >> side) >>> >> >>> >> Comprehensive diffs: >>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-diff.html >>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Please review and let us know if you have any objections. We would >>> >> appreciate an acknowledgement from at least one author before continuing >>> >> with the publication process. >>> >> >>> >> Thank you, >>> >> Sandy Ginoza >>> >> RFC Production Center >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> On Aug 18, 2025, at 11:01 AM, Karen Moore <[email protected]> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Tim, >>> >>> >>> >>> Great! We will proceed with the publication process. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks to all for your time! >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Karen Moore >>> >>> RFC Production Center >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > On Aug 16, 2025, at 4:44 AM, Tim Bray <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >>> > On Aug 16, 2025 at 4:27:30 AM, Karen Moore >>> >>> > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Tim, did you get a chance to double check the ABNF with James >>> >>> >> Manger? Note that there were no issues with the ABNF checks on our >>> >>> >> end. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Yes, and he reported the ABNF correct. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > -Tim >>> >>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> —Files (please refresh)— >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Updated XML file: >>> >>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.xml >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Updated output files: >>> >>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.txt >>> >>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.pdf >>> >>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839.html >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Diff files showing all changes made during AUTH48: >>> >>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-auth48diff.html >>> >>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-auth48rfcdiff.html (side >>> >>> >> by side) >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Diff files showing all changes: >>> >>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-diff.html >>> >>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9839-rfcdiff.html (side by >>> >>> >> side) >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>> >>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9839 >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Best regards, >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Karen Moore >>> >>> >> RFC Production Center >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> On Aug 15, 2025, at 5:49 PM, Tim Bray <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> What Paul said. -Tim >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Aug 15, 2025 at 9:48:57 PM, Paul Hoffman >>> >>> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Aug 15, 2025, at 17:46, Karen Moore >>> >>> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>>>> Hi Paul and Tim, >>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>>>> We have noted your approvals on the AUTH48 status page >>> >>> >>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9839__;!!PtGJab4!7oxwV35xvNK7a5-YAwJ18sDgzernD7RGTdQBjWUZ3ZWW7y6rcYNL97wKIHgwwLghZqItgwMPZedHaSHC96i03-gMA6zozVI0uA$ >>> >>> >>>>> [rfc-editor[.]org]>. Please confirm if you would like to update >>> >>> >>>>> the text per Rob’s suggestion below. Otherwise, we will move >>> >>> >>>>> forward with publication. >>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>>>> Current (Section 3): >>> >>> >>>>> [RFC9413], "Maintaining Robust Protocols", provides a thorough >>> >>> >>>>> discussion of strategies for dealing with issues in input data. >>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>>>> Perhaps: >>> >>> >>>>> "Maintaining Robust Protocols” [RFC9413] provides a thorough >>> >>> >>>>> discussion of strategies for dealing with issues in input data. >>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> Either is fine. Please base your decision on the RFC Style Guide. >>> >>> >>>> If the guide doesn't have such advice, feel free to pick one >>> >>> >>>> method and add it to the style guide. >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> --Paul Hoffman >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
