Thanks! I approve of these final changes. -Tim On Aug 22, 2025 at 6:53:26 PM, Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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]
