Hi Lynne, Happy New Year!
See below. On Mon, Jan 5, 2026 at 1:03 PM Lynne Bartholomew <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Donald. Happy New Year! > > We have made further updates to this document per your notes below. > > Apologies; does your note here indicate that we should apply superscripts or > leave as is? > > >> The .txt file would not show any changes; these entries would still be > >> "2**". We are fine with leaving as is but wanted to see if you'd like > >> superscripts in the PDF and HTML versions. Apologies for not clarifying > >> that earlier. > > > > No problem. I guess superscripts in the PDF and HTML versions would be > > more elegant. Yes, go ahead and use actual superscripts in the PDF and HTML versions. > = = = = = > > Regarding updating the code in Appendix B of this document to match the code > from draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-08 (the "Also, we see that the code in this > document is somewhat different" part of our question 47: > We used the code shown on the left-hand ("-08") side of > <https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-08&url2=rfc7924&difftype=--html> > to make the updates. Please review our updates carefully, and let us know > any concerns. The code you have now looks OK. However, I note that the original draft -08 text has "return (digest);". The parenthesis there are not necessary and have no effect but it seems a bit better to more precisely follow the code we are copying here by leaving in the parenthesis. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA [email protected] > 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 Dec 24, 2025, at 3:19 PM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Lynne, > > > > See below. > > > > On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 3:47 PM Lynne Bartholomew > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, Donald and *Eliot. > >> > >> Donald, thank you for your replies to our questions! We have updated this > >> document per your notes below. > >> > >> *Eliot, we have updated our "Questions for the ISE" item. Currently: > >> > >> <!-- [rfced] [ISE] Questions for the ISE: > >> > >> a) Because the original Section 1.1 contains the key > >> word "NOT RECOMMENDED", we (1) prepended the existing Section 1.1 > >> with a new Section 1.1 with the title "Conventions Used in This > >> Document", (2) added the typical boilerplate text, and (3) added > >> entries for RFCs 2119 and 8174 to the Normative References > >> section. Please let us know any concerns. > >> > >> b) May we list the years in the copyright notices within all of the > >> code components (17 instances) as "2016-2025" per guidance from our > >> legal counsel? > >> > >> One example: > >> > >> Original: > >> /* Copyright (c) 2016, 2024, 2025 IETF Trust and the persons > >> * identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> /* Copyright (c) 2016-2025 IETF Trust and the persons > >> * identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. > >> > >> c) Per the author, we have removed the textual citation and > >> reference listing for [Vortetty]. We want to confirm with you that > >> it is OK to remove mention of pseudorandom number generation. > >> > >> Original: > >> * to help seeding a pseudo random number generator [Vortetty], > >> ... > >> [Vortetty] "Raytracing for the gba", > >> <https://github.com/Vortetty/gba-rtx>. --> > >> > >> ===================================================== > >> > >> Donald, we have some follow-up items for you: > >> > >> Regarding our question 4) and your question regarding superscripts in .txt > >> output: > >> > >>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Sections 1.1 and subsequent: Do the instances of "2**" > >>>> in running text (seven, by our count) indicate superscripted numbers? > >>>> If yes, would you like us to apply the <sup> (superscript) element, > >>>> even though the artwork and sourcecode will still use the "**"s? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> ... > >>>> collisions among the hashes of more than 2**N distinct inputs. And > >>>> if the hash function can produce hashes covering all 2**N possible > >>>> ... > >>>> also a power of 2, in particular n = 2**s. For each such n-bit FNV > >>>> ... > >>>> bits in it: one relatively high order one bit, the 2**9 bit, and 4 or > >>>> ... > >>>> hash size S such that 2**S > max. Then, calculate the following: > >>>> ... > >>>> from a bias against large values with the bias being larger if 2**S > >>>> ... > >>>> arithmetic mod 2**HashSize. --> > >>> > >>> They do indicate exponents, i.e., superscripts, but what will your > >>> suggested change do to occurrences in text in the .txt version? > >>> Superscripts are probably great in the PDF and HTML versions but what > >>> does it look like in .txt? > >>> > >> > >> The .txt file would not show any changes; these entries would still be > >> "2**". We are fine with leaving as is but wanted to see if you'd like > >> superscripts in the PDF and HTML versions. Apologies for not clarifying > >> that earlier. > > > > No problem. I guess superscripts in the PDF and HTML versions would be > > more elegant. > > > >> = = = = = > >> > >> Regarding our question 8) and your reply: > >> > >>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 1.2: We had trouble following these sentences. > >>>> If the suggested text is not correct, please clarify. > >>>> > >>>> Please note that [BFDseq] underwent significant changes since > >>>> March 2022 and no longer mentions FNV, so we took that into account > >>>> in the suggested text. If the suggested text is incorrect, please > >>>> let us know how this text should be updated. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> A study has recommended FNV in connection with the IPv6 Flow Label > >>>> field [IPv6flow]. Additionally, there was a proposal to use FNV for > >>>> BFD sequence number generation [BFDseq] and a recent article and > >>>> study on non-cryptographic hash functions [NCHF]. > >>>> > >>>> Suggested: > >>>> [IPv6flow] researched and recommended using 32-bit FNV1a in > >>>> connection with the IPv6 flow label value. Additionally, > >>>> [ISAAC-Auth] proposes the use of Indirection, Shift, Accumulate, > >>>> Add, and Count (ISAAC) as a means of BFD sequence number generation, > >>>> and [NCHF] discusses criteria for evaluating non-cryptographic hash > >>>> functions. --> > >>> > >>> Later non-FNV recommendations are not important. This later change is > >>> why our proposed text says "... there was a proposal ..." in the past > >>> tense. I don't see any problem with your editorial changes re > >>> [IPv6flow] and [NCHF] but I don't see what's wrong with the [BFDseq] > >>> reference to a specific old, outdated, draft which used FNV. This > >>> document is about FNV, not about ISAAC, and I see no reason for it to > >>> mention/reference ISAAC. > >> > >> Please review our updates to this text, and let us know if anything is > >> incorrect. > > > > Looks fine to me. > > > >> = = = = = > >> > >> Regarding our question 10) and your reply: > >> > >>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] <sourcecode> entries: Please review the sourcecode-type > >>>> settings in this document, and please refer to > >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types> > >>>> for the list of approved types. Please note that we changed > >>>> 'type="C"' to 'type="c"' per the sourcecode-types page. > >>>> Also, please note that "makefile" is not included on the > >>>> sourcecode-types page. Does the page contain an acceptable > >>>> substitute that you could use? If not, it's fine to leave the > >>>> "type" attribute unset. > >>> > >>> "C" -> "c" is OK. > >>> > >>>> Another option: If the sourcecode-types page does not contain an > >>>> applicable type, please let us know if you would like us to request > >>>> that additional sourcecode types (e.g., "makefile") be approved and > >>>> listed on the sourcecode-types page. (As noted above, it's also fine > >>>> to leave the "type" attribute unset.) > >>> > >>> Yes. "makefile" is a common and quite venerable "sourcecode" type > >>> originating with early UNIXes and very widely in use every day today. > >>> It has its own format and should be included in the allowed Sourcecode > >>> Types. Please request its addition there. > >> > >> Thank you for this information. We included it in our email to the > >> RFC Production Advisory Team (RPAT); we asked them to consider > >> adding "makefile" to the list of sourcecode types. > >> > >> ** Please note: One of the RPAT personnel sent the following: > >> > >>> It is indeed a widely used file format, but keep in mind that > >>> there are at least three popular versions of make, Gnu, BSD, and > >>> Microsoft, and the makefile formats are similar but not identical. > >>> > >>> "I'd be OK with a note to authors asking them to put a comment in > >>> the makefile saying which flavor of make it's intended for, unless > >>> they're sure it's so simple that it'll work in all of them. > >> > >> Would you like to make such an update in the leading comments for > >> the makefile (possibly just after the "# Makefile for fnv" line)? > >> If yes, please specify how best to update. > > > > I think the makefile is sufficiently simple that it should work for > > all of these. > > > >> = = = = = > >> > >> Regarding our question 12) and your reply: > >> > >>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.2: Is the offset_basis sometimes the hash > >>>> output, or always? If neither suggestion below is correct, please > >>>> clarify. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> Any entity that can observe the FNV hash > >>>> output, and can cause the null string (the string of length zero) to > >>>> be hashed, will thereby be able to directly observe the offset_basis > >>>> which will be the hash output. > >>>> > >>>> Suggestion #1 (sometimes): > >>>> Any entity that can observe the FNV hash > >>>> output, and can cause the null string (the string of length zero) to > >>>> be hashed, will thereby be able to directly observe the offset_basis > >>>> that will be the hash output. > >>>> > >>>> Suggestion #2 (always): > >>>> Any entity that can observe the FNV hash > >>>> output, and can cause the null string (the string of length zero) to > >>>> be hashed, will thereby be able to directly observe the > >>>> offset_basis, which will be the hash output. --> > >>>> > >>> The FNV hash function always produces the same output for the same > >>> input. The null string as input always outputs the offset_basis but > >>> other inputs almost never produce that output. Your suggestion #1 looks > >>> good except I do not think there should be a comma after "output". The > >>> structure of the sentence is "Any entity that can observe A and can > >>> cause B will thereby be able to C." Does this structure really need > >>> any commas? I don't actually have a problem with the comma after > >>> "hashed" but I don't like the comma after "output". > >> > >> It should be either two commas or none; we went with none. > > > > OK. > > > >> = = = = = > >> > >> Regarding our question 20) and your reply: > >> > >>>> 20) <!-- [rfced] Section 8.1.1: The following four entries don't seem to > >>>> have any descriptive information below them. We also see that the > >>>> first three entries are contained in an <artwork> element but the > >>>> fourth entry is part of the description list. > >>>> > >>> That's not how it was in the XML we submitted. As submitted this is a > >>> <dl> list with the first three lines having a <dd/> with null content and > >>> the fourth having the descriptive text as the <dd> content. Perhaps > >>> due to this change, the current .txt for the "paragraphs" in this > >>> section has the descriptive text peculiarly flowed up. Please look at > >>> this in the text produced from the original XML submitted. > >>>> > >>>> Will the use/purpose of these four entries be clear to readers, or > >>>> should all of them have definitions and be part of the same > >>>> definition list? > >>>> > >>> The descriptive text applies to all four lines. See comment above. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> FNVxxxstring, FNVxxxblock, FNVxxxfile: > >>>> > >>>> FNVxxxstringBase, FNVxxxblockBase, FNVxxxfileBase: > >>>> > >>>> FNVxxxINTstring, FNVxxxINTblock, FNVxxxINTfile: > >>>> ... > >>>> FNVxxxinit, FNVxxxinitBasis: --> > >> > >> We reverted the formatting (i.e., returned to the <dl> format rather > >> than <artwork>). > > > > OK. > > > >> = = = = = > >> > >> Regarding our question 22) and your reply: > >> > >>>> 22) <!-- [rfced] Section 8.1.2: We had trouble following these > >>>> sentences. > >>>> We updated them as follows. If these updates are incorrect, please > >>>> clarify the text. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> For support of a single FNV size, say "xxx", in an application, the > >>>> application itself needs to include the FNVxxx.h (which will, in > >>>> turn, include the FNVconfig.h and FNVErrorCodes.h) files. To build > >>>> the particular FNVxxx code itself, compile the FNVxxx.c file with > >>>> FNVconfig.h, fnv-private.h, FNVErrorCodes.h, and FNVxxx.h available. > >>>> > >>>> Currently: > >>>> For support of a single FNV size, say "xxx" (e.g., FNV64), in an > >>>> application, the application itself needs to include the appropriate > >>>> FNVxxx.h file (which will, in turn, include the FNVconfig.h and > >>>> FNVErrorCodes.h files). To build the particular FNVxxx code itself, > >>>> compile the FNVxxx.c file with FNVconfig.h, fnv-private.h, > >>>> FNVErrorCodes.h, and FNVxxx.h (available in Section 8.2). --> > >>> > >>> "available" in this case means available to the compiler and has > >>> nothing to do with appearance in a section of this document. I suppose > >>> you could do something like "available." -> "available to the compiler > >>> while compiling the FNVxxx.c file." > >> > >> We weren't sure how best to update here. Please review our update > >> to the "To build the particular FNVxxx code ..." sentence, and let > >> us know if anything is incorrect. > > > > The current wording reads oddly to me. The parenthetical "... (available > > to ..." seems jarring and the scope/applicability of "available" seems > > unclear. Perhaps a minimum fix would be to add the word "all" so it > > was "... (all available ...". I think better would be to change the > > sentence to > > > > "To build the particular FNVxxx code itself, compile the FNVxxx.c > > file with the following files available to the compiler: > > FNVconfig.h, fnv-private.h, FNVErrorCodes.h, and FNVxxx.h. (See > > Section 8.2.)" > > > >> = = = = = > >> > >> Regarding your note in reply to our question 25): > >> > >>> NOTE: not exactly relevant to your question 25 but there is a > >>> difference between "hash a ..." and "hash in a ...". In the first > >>> instance, the function is calculating a hash solely dependent on the one > >>> parameter. In there second, there is also a context parameter that was > >>> previously initialized and may have had other data items hashed into > >>> it and the function is hashing additional data into that context. > >> > >> We appreciate this note. We had noticed that "hash in a" is used in > >> the context of parameters that end with "in" (FNV32blockin, > >> FNV32stringin, FNV32filein, etc.). Thank you for clarifying! > > > > You're welcome. > > > >> = = = = = > >> > >> Thanks also for your replies regarding our question 29); much appreciated! > >> > >> = = = = = > >> > >>> Your suggested changes are fine (and will make the document 2 lines > >>> shorter :-) ) > >> > >> Thank you for the humor! > >> > >> = = = = = > >> > >> Regarding our question 39) and your reply: > >> > >>>> 39) <!-- [rfced] References: We see "Last modified on: February 21, 2021 > >>>> by Danilo G. Baio" on the bottom of the provided page for [FreeBSD]. > >>>> Should this listing be updated to reflect the "Last modified" date > >>>> and possibly include "Baio, D. G."? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> [FreeBSD] The Free BSD Project, "FreeBSD 4.3 Release Notes", 2025, > >>>> <http://www.freebsd.org/releases/4.3R/notes.html>. --> > >>> > >>> Yes, I think such an update and inclusion would be good. > >> > >> Please review our update to this listing, and let us know if you > >> prefer a different format/style. > > > > Looks OK. > > > >> = = = = = > >> > >> Regarding our question 41) and your reply: > >> > >>>> 41) <!-- [rfced] References: Regarding [IEEE8021Qbp]: A Google search > >>>> for "IEEE Std 802.1Qbp" yields several "hits", but > >>>> <https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/802.1Qbp/5217/> and > >>>> <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6783684> (1) show titles that > >>>> include "Amendment 22:" and (2) list this standard as "Superseded". > >>>> Please let us know how, or if, this listing should be updated. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> [IEEE8021Qbp] > >>>> "Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges and Virtual Bridged > >>>> Local Area Networks - Equal Cost Multiple Path (ECMP)", > >>>> IEEE Std 802.1Qbp-2014, 7 April 2014. --> > >>> > >>> IEEE Std 802.1Qbp-2014 was an amendment to 802.1Q and has been merged > >>> into IEEE Std 802.1Q-2022 where the reference to FNV occures in Clause > >>> 44.1.2 entitled "ECMP ECT Algorithm". (IEEE refers to parts of their > >>> Standards as "Clauses" rather than "Sections" but I don't think anyone > >>> would be confused if the reference in this RFC was to "Section > >>> 44.1.2".) In any case, the reference tag should now be [IEEE8021Q] and > >>> an appropriate URL for IEEE Std 802.1Q-2022 should be used. > >> > >> Would you like us to specifically cite Clause 44.1.2 in Section 1.3? > >> Please note that the other two citations are general and do not > >> list section numbers. Currently: > >> > >> ... It is also referenced in the following > >> standards documents: [RFC7357], [RFC7873], and [IEEE8021Q-2022]. > > > > I do not think you need to reference the Clause. The IEEE Std document > > is a PDF and the use of FNV can be easily found by searching for > > "FNV". > > > >> = = = = = > >> > >> Regarding this part of our question 47): Is it OK that the code in > >> this document doesn't quite match the referenced code from Stefan > >> Santesson? > >> > >> ... > >>>> Also, we see that the code in this document is somewhat different > >>>> than the code provided in draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-08. > >>>> For example: > >>>> > >>>> In this document: > >>>> static public BigInteger getFNV1aToByte(byte[] inp) { > >>>> > >>>> In draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-08: > >>>> static public BigInteger getFNV1a64Digest (String inpString) { > >>>> > >>>> Should this be somehow clarified for readers? If yes, please provide > >>>> the text. > > > > I think the document should be changed to accurately reflect the -08 > > draft which is what the document claims it is trying to do. (I went > > back and checked -07 and -06 and they are all the same as -08.) > > > >> = = = = = > >> > >> Regarding this update: > >> > >>>> Extra space after "+" sign (5 instances): > >>>> ctx->Hash[i] = ( temp<<8 ) + *basis++; > >>>> ctx->Hash[i] = ( temp<<8 ) + (*basis++); > >>>> as compared to > >>>> ctx->Hash[i] = temp + *basis++; > >>> > >>> One space so as, in these instances, to make the punctuation to the > >>> left and right of the plus sign symmetric, is better. > >> > >> Apologies for not spotting this earlier: We now have 4 instances of > >> "ctx->Hash[i] = ( temp<<8 ) + *basis++;" and 1 instance of > >> "ctx->Hash[i] = ( temp<<8 ) + (*basis++);". Are the parentheses > >> around "*basis++" needed in this 1 instance? > > > > No, the parenthesis around "(*basis++)" can be removed. > > > > (In any case, before final approval, I will extract the code from the > > edited version and we will test it.) > > > > Thanks, > > Donald > > =============================== > > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > > 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA > > [email protected] > > > >> = = = = = > >> > >> 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-xmldiff1.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9923-xmldiff2.html > >> > >> Thank you again for your help and patience with this document and our > >> questions! > >> > >> Lynne Bartholomew > >> RFC Production Center > >> > >> > >>> On Dec 18, 2025, at 6:45 PM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Thanks for your very thorough review. > >>> > >>> I think we did a pretty good job testing and reviewing the actual code > >>> but I would like to personally apologize for our insufficient review > >>> of the comments accompanying the code. > >>> > >>> See below. > >>> > >>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 4:03 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Authors and *Eliot (ISE), > >>>> > >>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as > >>>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file. > >>>> > >>>> * Eliot, please review question #3 and let us know if you approve. > >>>> > >>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > >>>> the > >>>> title) for use on <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>. --> > >>> > >>> None occur to me. Perhaps other authors will come up with some. > >>> > >>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviations: > >>>> > >>>> a) Per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide" > >>>> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7322)), we expanded "MAC" where > >>>> first used. Please let us know any concerns. > >>>> > >>>> Currently: > >>>> Their good dispersion makes them particularly well > >>>> suited for hashing nearly identical strings, including URLs, > >>>> hostnames, filenames, text, and IP and Media Access Control (MAC) > >>>> addresses. > >>> > >>> Good. > >>> > >>>> b) For ease of the reader, should the following abbreviations also be > >>>> defined? If yes, please provide the correct definitions. > >>>> > >>>> MASS > >>> > >>> Probably a good idea but I don't know what it stands for. > >>> > >>>> IDE (We see "IDE" defined as "Integrated Development Environments" > >>>> in [fasmlab].) > >>>> > >>>> BFD (perhaps "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection"?) --> > >>> > >>> Yes, expanding IDE and BFD is good. > >>> > >>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] [ISE] Questions for the ISE: > >>>> > >>>> a) Because the original Section 1.1 contains the key > >>>> word "NOT RECOMMENDED", we (1) prepended the existing Section 1.1 > >>>> with a new Section 1.1 with the title "Conventions Used in This > >>>> Document", (2) added the typical boilerplate text, and (3) added > >>>> entries for RFCs 2119 and 8174 to the Normative References > >>>> section. Please let us know any concerns. > >>>> > >>>> b) May we list the years in the copyright notices within all of the > >>>> code components (17 instances) as "2016-2025" per guidance from our > >>>> legal counsel? > >>>> > >>>> One example > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> /* Copyright (c) 2016, 2024, 2025 IETF Trust and the persons > >>>> * identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. > >>>> > >>>> Perhaps: > >>>> /* Copyright (c) 2016-2025 IETF Trust and the persons > >>>> * identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. > >>>> --> > >>> > >>> Up to the ISE Editor but I think your suggestions above are good. > >>> > >>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Sections 1.1 and subsequent: Do the instances of "2**" > >>>> in running text (seven, by our count) indicate superscripted numbers? > >>>> If yes, would you like us to apply the <sup> (superscript) element, > >>>> even though the artwork and sourcecode will still use the "**"s? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> ... > >>>> collisions among the hashes of more than 2**N distinct inputs. And > >>>> if the hash function can produce hashes covering all 2**N possible > >>>> ... > >>>> also a power of 2, in particular n = 2**s. For each such n-bit FNV > >>>> ... > >>>> bits in it: one relatively high order one bit, the 2**9 bit, and 4 or > >>>> ... > >>>> hash size S such that 2**S > max. Then, calculate the following: > >>>> ... > >>>> from a bias against large values with the bias being larger if 2**S > >>>> ... > >>>> arithmetic mod 2**HashSize. --> > >>> > >>> They do indicate exponents, i.e., superscripts, but what will your > >>> suggested change do to occurrences in text in the .txt version? > >>> Superscripts are probably great in the PDF and HTML versions but what > >>> does it look like in .txt? > >>> > >>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 1.1: We found this sentence difficult to > >>>> follow. We updated it as noted below. If this is incorrect, please > >>>> provide clarifying text. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> FNV is > >>>> NOT RECOMMENDED for any application that requires that it be > >>>> computationally infeasible to succeed in one of the above attacks. > >>>> > >>>> Currently: > >>>> FNV is > >>>> NOT RECOMMENDED for any application that requires that it be > >>>> computationally infeasible for one of the above types of attacks to > >>>> succeed. --> > >>> > >>> OK. > >>> > >>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 1.2: Will "libketama" be clear to readers? > >>>> Would it be helpful to also cite <https://www.metabrew.com/article/ > >>>> libketama-consistent-hashing-algo-memcached-clients> ("libketama: > >>>> Consistent Hashing library for memcached clients") here and list it > >>>> in the Informative References section? > >>>> > >>>> We ask because we don't see "libketama" mentioned on the [memcache] > >>>> page. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> * used in an implementation of libketama for use in items such as > >>>> [memcache], --> > >>> > >>> That change seems useful. > >>> > >>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Section 1.2 and Informative References: As the cited > >>>> page does not mention "libstr" and shows "Standard Incident Reporter > >>>> library" at the top of the page, we changed "libstr" to "libsir" > >>>> accordingly. Please let us know any concerns. > >>>> > >>>> Also, for the reference entry, we could not identify "Lederman, R." at > >>>> <https://github.com/aremmell/libsir>, and we were unsure if "RML > >>>> aremmell" > >>>> is the same person. Please let us know if any further updates are needed. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> * the libstr logging library [libstr], > >>>> ... > >>>> [libstr] Lederman, R. and J. Johnson, "libstr logging library", > >>>> <https://github.com/aremmell/libsir>. > >>>> > >>>> Currently: > >>>> * the libsir logging library [libsir], > >>>> ... > >>>> [libsir] Lederman, R. and J. Johnson, "libsir logging library", > >>>> commit 0ae0173, 3 December 2025, > >>>> <https://github.com/aremmell/libsir>. --> > >>> > >>> Your suggested change looks good to me. > >>> > >>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 1.2: We had trouble following these sentences. > >>>> If the suggested text is not correct, please clarify. > >>>> > >>>> Please note that [BFDseq] underwent significant changes since > >>>> March 2022 and no longer mentions FNV, so we took that into account > >>>> in the suggested text. If the suggested text is incorrect, please > >>>> let us know how this text should be updated. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> A study has recommended FNV in connection with the IPv6 Flow Label > >>>> field [IPv6flow]. Additionally, there was a proposal to use FNV for > >>>> BFD sequence number generation [BFDseq] and a recent article and > >>>> study on non-cryptographic hash functions [NCHF]. > >>>> > >>>> Suggested: > >>>> [IPv6flow] researched and recommended using 32-bit FNV1a in > >>>> connection with the IPv6 flow label value. Additionally, > >>>> [ISAAC-Auth] proposes the use of Indirection, Shift, Accumulate, > >>>> Add, and Count (ISAAC) as a means of BFD sequence number generation, > >>>> and [NCHF] discusses criteria for evaluating non-cryptographic hash > >>>> functions. --> > >>> > >>> Later non-FNV recommendations are not important. This later change is > >>> why our proposed text says "... there was a proposal ..." in the past > >>> tense. I don't see any problem with your editorial changes re > >>> [IPv6flow] and [NCHF] but I don't see what's wrong with the [BFDseq] > >>> reference to a specific old, outdated, draft which used FNV. This > >>> document is about FNV, not about ISAAC, and I see no reason for it to > >>> mention/reference ISAAC. > >>> > >>>> 9) <!-- [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. --> > >>> > >>> I'll let other authors respond on that. > >>> > >>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] <sourcecode> entries: Please review the sourcecode-type > >>>> settings in this document, and please refer to > >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types> > >>>> for the list of approved types. Please note that we changed > >>>> 'type="C"' to 'type="c"' per the sourcecode-types page. > >>>> Also, please note that "makefile" is not included on the > >>>> sourcecode-types page. Does the page contain an acceptable > >>>> substitute that you could use? If not, it's fine to leave the > >>>> "type" attribute unset. > >>> > >>> "C" -> "c" is OK. > >>> > >>>> Another option: If the sourcecode-types page does not contain an > >>>> applicable type, please let us know if you would like us to request > >>>> that additional sourcecode types (e.g., "makefile") be approved and > >>>> listed on the sourcecode-types page. (As noted above, it's also fine > >>>> to leave the "type" attribute unset.) > >>> > >>> Yes. "makefile" is a common and quite venerable "sourcecode" type > >>> originating with early UNIXes and very widely in use every day today. > >>> It has its own format and should be included in the allowed Sourcecode > >>> Types. Please request its addition there. > >>> > >>>> Also, please let us know whether any artwork elements should be > >>>> marked as sourcecode; if yes, please provide the sourcecode type. --> > >>> > >>> I have reviewed all the artwork elements and I don't think any of them > >>> should be sourcecode elements. > >>> > >>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.1: Is "criteria" used in the singular here > >>>> (as currently indicated by "is more complex"), or is it used to > >>>> indicate more than one criterion (in which case "is more complex" > >>>> should be "are more complex")? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> The case where s > 10 is > >>>> not considered because of the doubtful utility of such large FNV > >>>> hashes and because the criteria for such large FNV_Primes is more > >>>> complex, due to the sparsity of such large primes, and would > >>>> needlessly clutter the criteria given above. --> > >>> > >>> I think plural would be more appropriate. Could say "would be more > >>> complex" instead of "is more complex". > >>> > >>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.2: Is the offset_basis sometimes the hash > >>>> output, or always? If neither suggestion below is correct, please > >>>> clarify. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> Any entity that can observe the FNV hash > >>>> output, and can cause the null string (the string of length zero) to > >>>> be hashed, will thereby be able to directly observe the offset_basis > >>>> which will be the hash output. > >>>> > >>>> Suggestion #1 (sometimes): > >>>> Any entity that can observe the FNV hash > >>>> output, and can cause the null string (the string of length zero) to > >>>> be hashed, will thereby be able to directly observe the offset_basis > >>>> that will be the hash output. > >>>> > >>>> Suggestion #2 (always): > >>>> Any entity that can observe the FNV hash > >>>> output, and can cause the null string (the string of length zero) to > >>>> be hashed, will thereby be able to directly observe the > >>>> offset_basis, which will be the hash output. --> > >>> > >>> The FNV hash function always produces the same output for the same > >>> input. The null string as input always outputs the offset_basis but > >>> other inputs almost never produce that output. Your suggestion #1 looks > >>> good except I do not think there should be a comma after "output". The > >>> structure of the sentence is "Any entity that can observe A and can > >>> cause B will thereby be able to C." Does this structure really need > >>> any commas? I don't actually have a problem with the comma after > >>> "hashed" but I don't like the comma after "output". > >>> > >>>> 13) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.3: We do not see any code provided in > >>>> Section 6 ("Security Considerations"). Please let us know which > >>>> section should be cited here. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> The code provided in Section 6 has FNV hash functions that return a > >>>> little endian byte vector for all lengths. --> > >>> > >>> Sorry, it should be Section 8. > >>> > >>>> 14) <!-- [rfced] Section 4: We had trouble parsing this sentence - in > >>>> particular, the "and ... or" relationships. Will this sentence be > >>>> clear to readers as written? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> For FNV, the same hash results if X, Y, and Z are actually > >>>> concatenated and the FNV hash applied to the resulting string or if > >>>> FNV is calculated on an initial substring and the result used as the > >>>> offset_basis when calculating the FNV hash of the remainder of the > >>>> string. > >>>> > >>>> Possibly: > >>>> For FNV, the same hash results if 1) X, Y, and Z are actually > >>>> concatenated and the FNV hash is applied to the resulting string or > >>>> 2) FNV is calculated on an initial substring and the result is used > >>>> as the offset_basis when calculating the FNV hash of the remainder > >>>> of the string. --> > >>> > >>> Your rewording makes what was intended clearer. > >>> > >>>> 15) <!-- [rfced] Section 4: We only see one mention of the idea of > >>>> "flow ID" in RFC 6437 ("a stateless method of flow identification and > >>>> label assignment") but quite a few instances of "Flow Label" and > >>>> "flow label" (and one instance of "Flow label"). Should "flow ID" > >>>> and "Flow ID" be "flow label" or "Flow Label" here? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> For example, assume some sort of computer network traffic flow ID, > >>>> such as the IPv6 flow ID [RFC6437], is to be calculated for network > >>>> packets based on the source and destination IPv6 address and the > >>>> Traffic Class [RFC8200]. If the Flow ID is calculated in the > >>>> originating host, the source IPv6 address would likely always be the > >>>> same or perhaps assume one of a very small number of values. --> > >>> > >>> Yes, flow label / Flow Label is what is intended. > >>> > >>>> 16) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.1: Is a Routing Information Base the only > >>>> source of routing information (in which case "i.e.," is correct), or > >>>> is it an example of a source of routing information (in which case > >>>> "e.g.," should be used here instead)? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> Such an arrangement might be used for the symbol table in a > >>>> compiler or for some of the routing information (i.e., RIB > >>>> (Routing Information Base)) in a router. --> > >>> > >>> Generally all the routing information at a node is referred to as the > >>> RIB so I think i.e. is correct. > >>> > >>>> 17) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.1: As it appears to us that "occur, or > >>>> service is degraded" means "occur or when service is degraded" as > >>>> opposed to "occur or if service is degraded", we updated this > >>>> sentence accordingly. If this is incorrect, please provide > >>>> clarifying text. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> * If the adversary cannot detect when collisions occur, or service > >>>> is degraded, then it is sufficient for the adversary to be unable > >>>> to predict the hash outcomes. > >>>> > >>>> Currently: > >>>> * If the adversary cannot detect when collisions occur or when > >>>> service is degraded, then it is sufficient for the adversary to be > >>>> unable to predict the hash outcomes. --> > >>> > >>> Your edited version is correct. > >>> > >>>> 18) <!-- [rfced] Section 7: We found the citation for [IEEE] confusing, > >>>> as we could not readily locate information on the IEEE POSIX P1003.2 > >>>> committee when searching [IEEE]. Also, in a general web search, we > >>>> saw a reference to a September 1991 draft > >>>> (https://mirror.math.princeton.edu/pub/oldlinux/Linux.old/ > >>>> Ref-docs/POSIX/all.pdf) and a 1992 paper > >>>> (https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/1003.2/1408/). Will this text and > >>>> citation be clear to readers? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> The FNV hash algorithm originated from an idea submitted as reviewer > >>>> comments to the [IEEE] POSIX P1003.2 committee in 1991 by Glenn > >>>> Fowler and Phong Vo. --> > >>> > >>> I have to admit that "[IEEE]" is a very general reference but I don't > >>> know if the IEEE P1003.2 committee still exists or what a good web > >>> address for it would be. I think the current text and reference are > >>> adequate. > >>> > >>>> 19) <!-- [rfced] Section 8.1.1: Should "Base" be "Basis" for these > >>>> entries? We don't see "Base" used anywhere else in comparable > >>>> parameter names (e.g., "FNV64stringBasis", "FNV32blockBasis" as > >>>> used later). > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> FNVxxxstringBase, FNVxxxblockBase, FNVxxxfileBase: > >>>> ... > >>>> FNVxxxINTstringBase, FNVxxxINTblockBase, FNVxxxINTfileBase: > >>>> ... > >>>> The functions whose name has the "Base" suffix take an additional > >>>> parameter specifying the offset_basis. --> > >>> > >>> Thanks for spotting that. It is an excellent catch. These should all > >>> have "Base" -> "Basis" so they will be like FWVxxxinitBasis. > >>> > >>>> 20) <!-- [rfced] Section 8.1.1: The following four entries don't seem to > >>>> have any descriptive information below them. We also see that the > >>>> first three entries are contained in an <artwork> element but the > >>>> fourth entry is part of the description list. > >>> > >>> That's not how it was in the XML we submitted. As submitted this is a > >>> <dl> list with the first three lines having a <dd/> with null content and > >>> the fourth having the descriptive text as the <dd> content. Perhaps > >>> due to this change, the current .txt for the "paragraphs" in this > >>> section has the descriptive text peculiarly flowed up. Please look at > >>> this in the text produced from the original XML submitted. > >>> > >>>> Will the use/purpose of these four entries be clear to readers, or > >>>> should all of them have definitions and be part of the same > >>>> definition list? > >>> > >>> The descriptive text applies to all four lines. See comment above. > >>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> FNVxxxstring, FNVxxxblock, FNVxxxfile: > >>>> > >>>> FNVxxxstringBase, FNVxxxblockBase, FNVxxxfileBase: > >>>> > >>>> FNVxxxINTstring, FNVxxxINTblock, FNVxxxINTfile: > >>>> ... > >>>> FNVxxxinit, FNVxxxinitBasis: --> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 21) <!-- [rfced] Section 8.1.2: Does "a command line invoking > >>>> compilation" mean "a compilation that invokes a command line" or > >>>> "a command line invoking a compilation"? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> By default, this is set in FNVconfig.h based on > >>>> the compilation target; however, this can be overridden by editing > >>>> that file or by defining certain symbols in, for example, a command > >>>> line invoking compilation. --> > >>> > >>> The second, it means "a command line invoking a compilation" > >>> > >>>> 22) <!-- [rfced] Section 8.1.2: We had trouble following these > >>>> sentences. > >>>> We updated them as follows. If these updates are incorrect, please > >>>> clarify the text. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> For support of a single FNV size, say "xxx", in an application, the > >>>> application itself needs to include the FNVxxx.h (which will, in > >>>> turn, include the FNVconfig.h and FNVErrorCodes.h) files. To build > >>>> the particular FNVxxx code itself, compile the FNVxxx.c file with > >>>> FNVconfig.h, fnv-private.h, FNVErrorCodes.h, and FNVxxx.h available. > >>>> > >>>> Currently: > >>>> For support of a single FNV size, say "xxx" (e.g., FNV64), in an > >>>> application, the application itself needs to include the appropriate > >>>> FNVxxx.h file (which will, in turn, include the FNVconfig.h and > >>>> FNVErrorCodes.h files). To build the particular FNVxxx code itself, > >>>> compile the FNVxxx.c file with FNVconfig.h, fnv-private.h, > >>>> FNVErrorCodes.h, and FNVxxx.h (available in Section 8.2). --> > >>> > >>> "available" in this case means available to the compiler and has > >>> nothing to do with appearance in a section of this document. I suppose > >>> you could do something like "available." -> "available to the compiler > >>> while compiling the FNVxxx.c file." > >>> > >>>> 23) <!-- [rfced] Sections 8.2 and subsequent: We changed instances of > >>>> "RFC NNNN" to "RFC 9923". Please let us know of any concerns. --> > >>> > >>> Sounds good. That was the intent. > >>> > >>>> 24) <!-- [rfced] Sections 8.2.1 and subsequent: Does "a specified length > >>>> byte vector" mean "a specified 'length byte vector'", "a byte vector > >>>> of specified length", or something else? We ask because we see text > >>>> such as "4-byte vector" and "the same size byte vectors" used > >>>> elsewhere. Please clarify. > >>>> > >>>> Examples from original: > >>>> * FNV32block: hash a specified length byte vector > >>>> ... > >>>> * FNV32blockin: hash in a specified length byte vector > >>>> ... > >>>> * FNV32INTblock: hash a specified length byte vector > >>>> ... > >>>> * FNV64block: hash a specified length byte vector --> > >>> > >>> It means a byte vector of a specified length. > >>> > >>>> 25) <!-- [rfced] Sections 8.2.1 and subsequent: Do instances of > >>>> "FNV32 hash a ...", "FNV64 hash a", etc. mean "FNV32-hash a ...", > >>>> "FNV64-hash a", etc. (i.e., to indicate verbs), or do they mean > >>>> "FNV32: Hash a ...", "FNV64: Hash a", etc. (to indicate instructions, > >>>> e.g., per "Hash the contents of the file" in Section 8.1.3)? > >>>> > >>>> Examples from original: > >>>> /* FNV32 hash a zero-terminated string not including the zero > >>>> ... > >>>> /* FNV64 hash a zero-terminated string not including the zero > >>>> ... > >>>> * FNV64string: hash a zero-terminated string not including > >>>> ... > >>>> * FNV32block: hash a specified length byte vector > >>>> ... > >>>> * FNV32blockin: hash in a specified length byte vector --> > >>> > >>> Putting a colon after FNV32 etc. in these cases is good. I think they > >>> are all inside comments so such an editorial change should not cause > >>> any problem. > >>> > >>> NOTE: not exactly relevant to your question 25 but there is a > >>> difference between "hash a ..." and "hash in a ...". In the first > >>> instance, the function is calculating a hash solely dependent on the one > >>> parameter. In there second, there is also a context parameter that was > >>> previously initialized and may have had other data items hashed into > >>> it and the function is hashing additional data into that context. > >>> > >>>> 26) <!-- [rfced] Sections 8.2.2 and subsequent: Please note that we > >>>> removed or added spaces in the following code items. > >>>> > >>>> Original (these are most of the items that we modified): > >>>> int error; (2 instances) > >>>> int rc; > >>>> FNV128context ctx; > >>>> ( memcmp ( was, should, N) != 0 ) > >>>> (uint8_t *)0 , (we only found one instance of a space before a > >>>> comma, so we removed the space here) > >>>> TestR ( "result2", fnvNull, RSLT ( &CTX, (uint8_t *)0 ) ); > >>>> FNV128result ( &e128Context, hash ) ); > >>>> TestR ( "result3i", fnvStateError, RSLTINT ( &ctx, &INTV ) ); > >>>> > >>>> The spacing changes can be seen in the latest rfc9923-rfcdiff file. > >>>> > >>>> Please let us know if you do not agree with these changes, and we > >>>> will revert them. > >>> > >>> I reviewed all the changes in the code section of 8.2 in > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9923-rfcdiff.html and they all > >>> look OK. > >>> > >>>> Please also note that we did not make any changes to > >>>> Stefan Santesson's code, as we consider it "Do Not Edit" (DNE) > >>>> and have flagged it as such in the XML file. --> > >>> > >>> OK. > >>> > >>>> 27) <!-- [rfced] Section 8.2.2: Please review the items listed under > >>>> "Function Prototypes:" and under the "Hash is returned as an 8-byte > >>>> vector by the functions above. If 64-bit integers are supported" > >>>> text in this section. Because it appears that the focus here is on > >>>> "FNV64" parameters and there may have been some copy-paste issues in > >>>> this section, please review the following, and advise: > >>>> > >>>> a) Because it appears that "FNV164stringBasis" should be > >>>> "FNV64stringBasis", we updated accordingly. Please let us know > >>>> if this is incorrect. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> * FNV164stringBasis: also takes an offset_basis parameter > >>>> > >>>> Currently: > >>>> * FNV64stringBasis: also takes an offset_basis parameter > >>> > >>> Thanks for catching that. Your change is correct. > >>> > >>>> b) It appears that "FNV128fileBasis" and "FNV128filein" should be > >>>> "FNV64fileBasis" and "FNV64filein". May we update accordingly? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> * FNV64file: hash the contents of a file > >>>> * FNV128fileBasis: also takes an offset_basis parameter > >>>> * > >>>> * FNV64init: initializes an FNV64 context > >>>> * FNV64initBasis: initializes an FNV64 context with a > >>>> * provided 8-byte vector basis > >>>> * FNV64blockin: hash in a specified length byte vector > >>>> * FNV64stringin: hash in a zero-terminated string not > >>>> * including the terminating zero > >>>> * FNV128filein: hash in the contents of a file > >>>> * FNV64result: returns the hash value > >>> > >>> Yes, these errors in the source code comment should be fixed replacing > >>> 128 with 64. > >>> > >>>> c) It appears that "FNV32INTstringBasis", "FNV32INTblockBasis", and > >>>> "FNV32INTfileBasis" should be "FNV64INTstringBasis", > >>>> "FNV64INTblockBasis", and "FNV64INTfileBasis". Should we update > >>>> accordingly? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> * FNV64INTstring: hash a zero-terminated string not including > >>>> * the terminating zero > >>>> * FNV32INTstringBasis: also takes an offset_basis parameter > >>>> * > >>>> * FNV64INTblock: hash a specified length byte vector > >>>> * FNV32INTblockBasis: also takes an offset_basis parameter > >>>> * > >>>> * FNV64INTfile: hash the contents of a file > >>>> * FNV32INTfileBasis: also takes an offset_basis parameter > >>>> * > >>>> * FNV64INTinitBasis: initializes an FNV32 context with a > >>>> * provided 64-bit integer basis > >>> > >>> Yes, these errors in that source code comment should be fixed > >>> replacing 32 with 64. > >>> > >>>> d) Should "FNV64INTinitBasis: initializes an FNV32 context" be > >>>> "FNV64INTinitBasis: initializes an FNV64 context"? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> FNV64INTinitBasis: initializes an FNV32 context with a --> > >>> > >>> Yes. > >>> > >>>> 28) <!-- [rfced] Section 8.2.2: Does "Null input/out pointer" mean > >>>> "Null input/output pointer", "Null input pointer /out pointer", or > >>>> something else? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> return fnvNull; /* Null input/out pointer */ --> > >>> > >>> "fnvNull" is an error code returned if the function is called with a > >>> "null input pointer or null output pointer". > >>> > >>>> 29) <!-- [rfced] Sections 8.2.3, 8.2.4, 8.2.5, and 8.2.6: Please review > >>>> the following, and let us know if any changes are needed: > >>>> > >>>> a) Please confirm that the same text - "Hash is returned as an array > >>>> of 8-bit unsigned integers" - is correct for all four sections. > >>>> We ask because of "Hash is returned as a 4-byte vector by the > >>>> functions above, and the following return a 32-bit unsigned integer" > >>>> in Section 8.2.1 ("FNV32 Code"). > >>> > >>> So, it's a little complicated. The FNV32 functions have versions that > >>> return a 32 bit integer and versions that return a vector of 4 bytes > >>> each 8 bits. The FNV64 functions have versions that return a vector of > >>> 8 bytes each 8 bits and, if the code is compiled with 64 bit integers > >>> supported, versions that return such a 64 bit integer. > >>> > >>> Since we assume the there is no direct support for integers larger > >>> than 64 bits, all of the FNV128, FNV256, FNV512, and FNV1024 functions > >>> return a vector of 8 bit bytes, the length of that vector being 16, > >>> 32, 64, and 128 bytes respectively. So I believe the line "Hash is > >>> returned as an array of 8-bit unsigned integers" is correct for all of > >>> FNV128 through FNV1024 although it could, perhaps, be clearer and > >>> information about the length of the vector, which would be different > >>> for each different size of FNV, could be added. > >>> > >>>> b) Please search for instances of "This structure holds context > >>>> information for an FNV", and let us know if the data that follows > >>>> these lines is correct. The first and second instances appear to be > >>>> OK, but we want to confirm that the data that follows the third, > >>>> fourth, fifth, and sixth instances are also OK (i.e., should always > >>>> indicate 64-bit integers; apologies if we are missing a statement > >>>> that says support for 64-bit integers applies to all FNVs discussed > >>>> in this document). > >>> > >>> This context is an internal structure. If a the code is compiled for > >>> a computer that supports 64 bit integers, it is more efficient for > >>> this internal structure to be composed in one way whereas if the code > >>> is compiled for a computer that does not support 64 bit integers, this > >>> internal structure must be composed in a different way. The only case > >>> where this does not apply is FNV32. In other words, the data following > >>> all these lines is correct. > >>> > >>>> c) Please search for instances of "version if", and confirm that > >>>> the text should always be "version if 64-bit ...". --> > >>> > >>> Yes, there is a version if 64-bit integers are supported and a version > >>> if 64-bits are not supported for every length of FNV except FNV32. > >>> > >>>> 30) <!-- [rfced] Sections 8.2.4, 8.2.5, and 8.2.6: As it appeared that > >>>> "FNV246stgringBasis", "FMNV512filein", and "FMV1024fileBasis" should > >>>> be "FNV256stringBasis", "FNV512filein", and "FNV1024fileBasis", > >>>> respectively, we updated accordingly. Please let us know if anything > >>>> is incorrect. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> * FNV246stgringBasis: also takes an offset_basis parameter > >>>> ... > >>>> * FMNV512filein: hash in the contents of a file > >>>> ... > >>>> } /* end FMV1024fileBasis */ > >>>> > >>>> Currently: > >>>> * FNV256stringBasis: also takes an offset_basis parameter > >>>> ... > >>>> * FNV512filein: hash in the contents of a file > >>>> ... > >>>> } /* end FNV1024fileBasis */ --> > >>> > >>> Yes, thanks for those fixes. > >>> > >>>> 31) <!-- [rfced] Sections 8.2.4 and 8.2.6: Are these two extra lowercase > >>>> "version for when you only have 32-bit arithmetic" entries still > >>>> needed in this document? We ask because a "START VERSION FOR WHEN > >>>> YOU ONLY HAVE 32-BIT ARITHMETIC" entry immediately precedes both > >>>> of these lowercased entries, and the other three "START VERSION FOR > >>>> WHEN YOU ONLY HAVE 32-BIT ARITHMETIC" entries (Sections 8.2.2, > >>>> 8.2.3, and 8.2.5) don't have this extra entry. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> /* version for when you only have 32-bit arithmetic > >>>> ... > >>>> /* version for when you only have 32-bit arithmetic --> > >>> > >>> I agree that these redundant "version for when you only have 32-bit > >>> arithmetic" lines can be removed. > >>> > >>>> 32) <!-- [rfced] Section 8.2.5: Should the two instances of > >>>> "FNV1024 context" be "FNV512 context" in these lines, and should > >>>> "128-byte" be "64-byte"? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> * FNV512init: initializes an FNV1024 context > >>>> * FNV512initBasis: initializes an FNV1024 context with a > >>>> * provided 128-byte vector basis --> > >>> > >>> Yes. > >>> > >>>> 33) <!-- [rfced] Section 8.3: > >>>> > >>>> a) Should the two instances of "follow by" be "followed by"? If no, > >>>> are they instructions and some words are missing (e.g., > >>>> "follow the ______ by size of ...")? > >>>> > >>>> We ask because of "case 'f': // followed by name of file to hash" > >>>> a few lines earlier. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> case 't': // follow by size of FNV to test, 0->all > >>>> ... > >>>> case 'u': // follow by size of FNV to use > >>> > >>> Yes, should be "followed by" > >>> > >>>> b) Should the spacing be adjusted here as suggested? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> FNV32INTfile ( > >>>> WriteTemp(teststring[i], iLen), > >>>> &eUint32 ) > >>>> ); > >>>> ... > >>>> FNV64INTfile ( > >>>> WriteTemp(teststring[i], iLen), > >>>> &eUint64 ) > >>>> ); > >>>> > >>>> Suggested: > >>>> FNV32INTfile ( WriteTemp(teststring[i], iLen), > >>>> &eUint32 ) ); > >>>> ... > >>>> FNV64INTfile ( WriteTemp(teststring[i], iLen), > >>>> &eUint64 ) ); --> > >>> > >>> Your suggested changes are fine (and will make the document 2 lines > >>> shorter :-) ). > >>> > >>>> 34) <!-- [rfced] Section 8.4: Would you like to order the list of .c > >>>> files by FNV size (and by their placement in the body of the > >>>> document), as was done for the "HDR=" line? > >>>> > >>>> We have the same question re. the list of .h files in the <TAB> line. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> SRC=FNV1024.c FNV128.c FNV256.c FNV32.c FNV512.c FNV64.c > >>>> ... > >>>> <TAB>FNVErrorCodes.h FNVconfig.h fnv-private.h > >>>> > >>>> Possibly: > >>>> SRC=FNV32.c FNV64.c FNV128.c FNV256.c FNV512.c FNV1024.c > >>>> ... > >>>> <TAB>FNVconfig.h FNVErrorCodes.h fnv-private.h --> > >>> > >>> OK. > >>> > >>>> 35) <!-- [rfced] References: We do not see David Bell mentioned on the > >>>> page provided for [calc]. Please confirm that this listing is > >>>> correct. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> [calc] Bell, D. and L. Noll, "Calc - C-style arbitrary precision > >>>> calculator", > >>>> <http://www.isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/calc/index.html>. --> > >>> > >>> Although David Bell is not listed on that page, if you click on the > >>> "Who wrote calc?" link, he is very prominent as the primary author so > >>> I think the reference listing is correct. > >>> > >>>> 36) <!-- [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/>. --> > >>> > >>> 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. > >>> > >>>> 37) <!-- [rfced] References: We see "NOTICE (2022-10-16): ...", re. a > >>>> new server, at the top of the provided page for [deliantra]. Should > >>>> this listing be updated to reflect the notice or was this a temporary > >>>> situation that no longer applies? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> [deliantra] > >>>> The Deliantra Team, "Deliantra MMORPG", 2016, > >>>> <http://www.deliantra.net/>. > >>>> > >>>> Possibly (if the notice is still relevant): > >>>> [deliantra] > >>>> The Deliantra Team, "Deliantra MMORPG", 16 October > >>>> 2022, <http://www.deliantra.net/>. --> > >>> > >>> I'm fine with updating the date re the notice. > >>> > >>>> 38) <!-- [rfced] References: Would you like us to change > >>>> "Fowler-Noll-Vo" > >>>> in the listing for [FNV] to "Fowler, G., Noll, L., and Vo, K." or > >>>> perhaps "Noll, L."? Is "Fowler-Noll-Vo" considered an organization > >>>> in this case? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> [FNV] Fowler-Noll-Vo, "FNV website", > >>>> <http://www.isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/fnv/index.html>. --> > >>> > >>> Listing all three people would probably be good. I do not think > >>> "Fowler-Noll-Vo" is an organization but is the thing actually > >>> referenced, Perhaps something like this: > >>> > >>> <reference anchor="FNV" > >>> target="http://www.isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/fnv/index.html";> > >>> <front> > >>> <title>FNV (Fowler/Noll/Vo)</title> > >>> <author initials="G." surname="Fowler"/> > >>> <author initials="L." surname="Noll"/> > >>> <suthor initials="K." surname="Vo"/> > >>> </front> > >>> </reference> > >>> > >>>> 39) <!-- [rfced] References: We see "Last modified on: February 21, 2021 > >>>> by Danilo G. Baio" on the bottom of the provided page for [FreeBSD]. > >>>> Should this listing be updated to reflect the "Last modified" date > >>>> and possibly include "Baio, D. G."? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> [FreeBSD] The Free BSD Project, "FreeBSD 4.3 Release Notes", 2025, > >>>> <http://www.freebsd.org/releases/4.3R/notes.html>. --> > >>> > >>> Yes, I think such an update and inclusion would be good. > >>> > >>>> 40) <!-- [rfced] References: The provided URL for [GolfHash] steers to > >>>> <https://rimstone-lang.com/>, and we see "Golf is now RimStone > >>>> (2025-10-02)". May we change the citation string to "[RimStone]" > >>>> and update the URL? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> * Golf language hash tables [GolfHash], > >>>> ... > >>>> [GolfHash] Gliim LLC, "Golf Language Hash Tables", 2025, > >>>> <https://golf-lang.com/new-hash.html>. > >>>> > >>>> Possibly: > >>>> * Golf language hash tables [RimStone], > >>>> ... > >>>> [RimStone] Gliim LLC, "Golf Language Hash Tables", 2025, > >>>> <https://rimstone-lang.com/>. --> > >>> > >>> OK. > >>> > >>>> 41) <!-- [rfced] References: Regarding [IEEE8021Qbp]: A Google search > >>>> for "IEEE Std 802.1Qbp" yields several "hits", but > >>>> <https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/802.1Qbp/5217/> and > >>>> <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6783684> (1) show titles that > >>>> include "Amendment 22:" and (2) list this standard as "Superseded". > >>>> Please let us know how, or if, this listing should be updated. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> [IEEE8021Qbp] > >>>> "Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges and Virtual Bridged > >>>> Local Area Networks - Equal Cost Multiple Path (ECMP)", > >>>> IEEE Std 802.1Qbp-2014, 7 April 2014. --> > >>> > >>> IEEE Std 802.1Qbp-2014 was an amendment to 802.1Q and has been merged > >>> into IEEE Std 802.1Q-2022 where the reference to FNV occures in Clause > >>> 44.1.2 entitled "ECMP ECT Algorithm". (IEEE refers to parts of their > >>> Standards as "Clauses" rather than "Sections" but I don't think anyone > >>> would be confused if the reference in this RFC was to "Section > >>> 44.1.2".) In any case, the reference tag should now be [IEEE8021Q] and > >>> an appropriate URL for IEEE Std 802.1Q-2022 should be used. > >>> > >>>> 42) <!-- [rfced] References: The provided URL for [IPv6flow] yields > >>>> either "Hmm. We're having trouble finding that site. We can't > >>>> connect to the server at rsnode-app-prod" or "502 Bad Gateway". > >>>> However, <https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/flowhashRep.pdf> > >>>> provides what appears to be the same paper. Would this URL be > >>>> considered stable? If yes, could we update this listing as follows? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> [IPv6flow] Anderson, L., Brownlee, N., and B. Carpenter, "Comparing > >>>> Hash Function Algorithms for the IPv6 Flow Label", > >>>> University of Auckland Department of Computer Science > >>>> Technical Report 2012-002, ISSN 1173-3500, March 2012, > >>>> <https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/bitstream/ > >>>> handle/2292/13240/flowhashRep.pdf>. > >>>> > >>>> Possibly: > >>>> [IPv6flow] Anderson, L., Brownlee, N., and B. E. Carpenter, > >>>> "Comparing Hash Function Algorithms for the IPv6 Flow > >>>> Label", University of Auckland Department of Computer > >>>> Science Technical Report 2012-002, ISSN 1173-3500, March > >>>> 2012, > >>>> <https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/flowhashRep.pdf>. --> > >>> > >>> Yes, please update to the currently working URL you found. Thanks. > >>> > >>>> 43) <!-- [rfced] References: On the provided page for [Vely], we see > >>>> "Steve Emms" near the top of the page and "Website: No longer > >>>> publicly developed" further down, past the bullet list and just > >>>> above "Developer: Sergio Mijatovic". > >>>> > >>>> Also, on the provided page several commenters have noted that some > >>>> relevant pages have been taken down. Will this citation still be > >>>> helpful to readers, or should it be updated? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> [Vely] Mijatovic, S., "Vely - general purpose framework", > >>>> <https://www.linuxlinks.com/vely-general-purpose- > >>>> framework/>. --> > >>> > >>> It appears that the only current use of FNV at that site may be the > >>> "smash" utility by Steven Emms... I suggest the reference be changed > >>> to something like the following: > >>> > >>> [Smash] Emms, S., "Smash - find duplicate files super fast", > >>> > >>> https://www.linuxlinks.com/smash-find-duplicate-files-super-fast/ > >>> > >>> Then the line in the body of the draft should change as follows > >>> OLD > >>> the [Vely] framework for C language, > >>> NEW > >>> the [Smash] utility for rapidly finding duplicate files, > >>> > >>>> 44) <!-- [rfced] References: We could not see how [Vortetty] is related > >>>> to pseudorandom number generation. Please confirm that the citation > >>>> and reference listing will be clear to readers. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> * to help seeding a pseudo random number generator [Vortetty], > >>>> ... > >>>> [Vortetty] "Raytracing for the gba", > >>>> <https://github.com/Vortetty/gba-rtx>. --> > >>> > >>> I am also unable to find FNV there. Maybe it was in a previous version > >>> and has been delected. Suggest removing this reference and the line > >>> from which it is referenced. > >>> > >>>> 45) <!-- [rfced] Appendix A: We had trouble at first following the > >>>> "and" relationships in this sentence. We updated per the > >>>> "Ignoring SHA-1's ..." and "Ignoring SHA-256's" sentences that > >>>> appear two and three paragraphs below this sentence. > >>>> > >>>> Also, as it appears that two items are listed here (the XOR and > >>>> multiply operations, per 'the "xor" and multiply operations' in > >>>> Section 2) rather than three items, we updated this sentence > >>>> accordingly. If anything is incorrect, please clarify. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> Ignoring transfer of control and conditional tests and equating all > >>>> logical and arithmetic operations, FNV requires 2 operations per > >>>> byte, an XOR and a multiply. > >>>> > >>>> Currently: > >>>> Ignoring transfer of control and conditional tests, and equating all > >>>> logical and arithmetic operations, FNV requires two operations per > >>>> byte: an XOR operation and a multiply operation. --> > >>> > >>> Your revised wording is OK. > >>> > >>>> 46) <!-- [rfced] Appendix A: We see from Google searches (e.g., a search > >>>> for "Is SHA-1 broken?") that SHA-1 has apparently been fully broken. > >>>> Would you like to update this text accordingly? > >>>> > >>>> Original (the previous sentence is included for context): > >>>> SHA-1 is a relatively weak cryptographic hash function producing a > >>>> 160-bit hash. It has been partially broken [RFC6194]. > >>>> > >>>> Possibly: > >>>> SHA-1 [RFC6194] is a relatively weak cryptographic hash function > >>>> producing a 160-bit hash. In recent years, it has been broken. --> > >>> > >>> Well, attacks have been found that reduce its strength so that it is > >>> inapporpirate for many uses but I would not say it is completely > >>> broken. I have no objection to making this stronger by saying > >>> "substantially broken" instead of "partically broken". > >>> > >>>> 47) <!-- [rfced] Appendix B: Because (1) draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-08 > >>>> did not expire (version -09 had been uploaded to the Datatracker about > >>>> 3 months after version -08, per > >>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7924/history/>) and (2) this > >>>> draft was ultimately published as RFC 7924 > >>>> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7924) (which we see no longer > >>>> contains the code in question), we updated this text accordingly. > >>>> Please review, and let us know if further clarifications are needed. > >>>> > >>>> Also, we see that the code in this document is somewhat different > >>>> than the code provided in draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-08. > >>>> For example: > >>>> > >>>> In this document: > >>>> static public BigInteger getFNV1aToByte(byte[] inp) { > >>>> > >>>> In draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-08: > >>>> static public BigInteger getFNV1a64Digest (String inpString) { > >>>> > >>>> Should this be somehow clarified for readers? If yes, please provide > >>>> the text. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> FNV-1a was referenced in draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-08.txt that has > >>>> since expired. Below is the Java code for FNV64 from that TLS draft > >>>> included with the kind permission of the author: > >>>> > >>>> Currently: > >>>> FNV-1a was referenced in draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-08 > >>>> (which was ultimately published as RFC 7924, but RFC 7924 no longer > >>>> contains the code below). Herein, we provide the Java code for FNV64 > >>>> from that earlier draft, included with the kind permission of the > >>>> author: --> > >>> > >>> Your wording is OK. > >>> > >>>> 48) <!-- [rfced] Acknowledgements section: As the names were mostly > >>>> listed in alphabetical order, we moved Paul Hoffman's name so that it > >>>> is listed between Tony Finch and Charlie Kaufman. Please let us know > >>>> any concerns. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> Roman Donchenko, Frank Ellermann, Stephen Farrell, Tony Finch, > >>>> Charlie Kaufman, Eliot Lear, Bob Moskowitz, Gayle Noble, Stefan > >>>> Santesson, Mukund Sivaraman, Paul Hoffman, and Paul Wouters. > >>>> > >>>> Currently: > >>>> Roman Donchenko, Frank Ellermann, Stephen Farrell, Tony Finch, Paul > >>>> Hoffman, Charlie Kaufman, Eliot Lear, Bob Moskowitz, Gayle Noble, > >>>> Stefan Santesson, Mukund Sivaraman, and Paul Wouters. --> > >>> > >>> OK, thanks. > >>> > >>>> 49) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the > >>>> online Style Guide at > >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>, > >>>> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature > >>>> typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for > >>>> readers. > >>>> > >>>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this > >>>> should still be reviewed as a best practice. --> > >>> > >>> I do not think there is any problem with inclusive language in this > >>> document. > >>> > >>>> 50) <!-- [rfced] Please let us know if any changes are needed for the > >>>> following: > >>>> > >>>> a) The following terms were used inconsistently in this document. > >>>> We chose to use the latter forms. Please let us know any objections. > >>>> > >>>> power of two / power of 2 (We also changed "power-of-two" to > >>>> "power-of-2".) > >>> > >>> OK. > >>> > >>>> b) The following terms appear to be used inconsistently in this > >>>> document. Please let us know which form is preferred. > >>>> > >>>> " 256, 512, and 1024\n"); / "256, 512, and 1024\n" ); > >>>> (spacing in back-to-back printf statements) > >>> > >>> I suppose the version with the space before the parenthesis is a bit > >>> more readable. > >>> > >>>> 64-bit Integers / 64-bit integers (back-to-back printf statements > >>>> in Section 8.3) > >>>> (We suggest lowercase "integers", per usage in the rest of > >>>> this document.) > >>> > >>> OK. > >>> > >>>> flow ID / Flow ID (text in Section 4) (We asked about this > >>>> inconsistency earlier, so this might have been resolved already.) > >>> > >>> I agreed above it should by flow "lable", not "ID". This is a distinct > >>> named field so I am inclined to say it should be Flow Label. > >>> > >>>> FNV Prime(s) / FNV_Prime(s) / FNV_prime > >>>> (e.g., "Size FNV Prime" and "32-bit FNV_Prime = ..." (Table 1), > >>>> "32-bit FNV_prime = ..." (Section 8.2.1), and similar ones > >>>> throughout Section 8.2) > >>> > >>> The underscore is included in the pseudocode and in the text > >>> explanations so I think it should be included in all cases. > >>> > >>>> little endian (adj.) (e.g., "little endian format", > >>>> "little endian byte vector") / > >>>> little-endian (e.g., "big endian or other non-little-endian > >>>> machines") > >>>> > >>>> Suggested: little-endian format, little-endian byte vector, > >>>> big-endian machines or other non-little-endian machines > >>> > >>> OK. > >>> > >>>> one bits (noun) / one-bits (noun) (If you wish to use the > >>>> hyphen, should "one bit" used as a noun in Section 2.1 also be > >>>> hyphenated?) > >>> > >>> In "one bits" one is an adjective. It means "bits whose value is 1" as > >>> opposed to bits whose value is 0. Probably should not be hyphenated. > >>> > >>>> Extra space after "+" sign (5 instances): > >>>> ctx->Hash[i] = ( temp<<8 ) + *basis++; > >>>> ctx->Hash[i] = ( temp<<8 ) + (*basis++); > >>>> as compared to > >>>> ctx->Hash[i] = temp + *basis++; > >>> > >>> One space so as, in these instances, to make the punctuation to the > >>> left and right of the plus sign symetric, is better. > >>> > >>>> printf( (2 instances) / printf ( (33 instances) > >>> > >>> Go with the space as per the more common occurence. > >>> > >>>> TestNValue (" (2 instances) / TestNValue ( " (16 instances) > >>>> > >>>> TestR ( " (84 instances) / TestR (" (7 instances) > >>>> > >>>> Verbose flag (3 instances) / verbose flag (1 instance) > >>> > >>> In the three cases above, go with the more common usage. > >>> > >>>> XOR folding / xor folding (in running text) > >>>> (We also see "xor data folding".) > >>>> > >>>> "xor" (operations) ("the "xor" and multiply operations") / > >>>> XOR (operations) ("operations per byte, an XOR and a multiply") --> > >>> > >>> I am inclined to make all instances all caps except for the one > >>> occurrence in Appendix B which must be lower case. > >>> > >>> Thanks again for your thorough review. > >>> > >>> Donald > >>> ============================= > >>> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > >>> 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA > >>> [email protected] > >>> > >>>> Thank you. > >>>> > >>>> Lynne Bartholomew and Karen Moore > >>>> RFC Production Center > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Dec 15, 2025, at 12:59 PM, RFC Editor via auth48archive > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> *****IMPORTANT***** > >>>> > >>>> Updated 2025/12/15 > >>>> > >>>> RFC Author(s): > >>>> -------------- > >>>> > >>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > >>>> > >>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and > >>>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > >>>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > >>>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > >>>> > >>>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > >>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > >>>> your approval. > >>>> > >>>> Planning your review > >>>> --------------------- > >>>> > >>>> Please review the following aspects of your document: > >>>> > >>>> * RFC Editor questions > >>>> > >>>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > >>>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > >>>> follows: > >>>> > >>>> <!-- [rfced] ... --> > >>>> > >>>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > >>>> > >>>> * Changes submitted by coauthors > >>>> > >>>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > >>>> coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > >>>> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > >>>> > >>>> * Content > >>>> > >>>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > >>>> change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > >>>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > >>>> - contact information > >>>> - references > >>>> > >>>> * Copyright notices and legends > >>>> > >>>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > >>>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > >>>> (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). > >>>> > >>>> * Semantic markup > >>>> > >>>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > >>>> content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> > >>>> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > >>>> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > >>>> > >>>> * Formatted output > >>>> > >>>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > >>>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > >>>> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > >>>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Submitting changes > >>>> ------------------ > >>>> > >>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all > >>>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties > >>>> include: > >>>> > >>>> * your coauthors > >>>> > >>>> * [email protected] (the RPC team) > >>>> > >>>> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > >>>> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > >>>> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > >>>> > >>>> * [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list > >>>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > >>>> list: > >>>> > >>>> * More info: > >>>> > >>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > >>>> > >>>> * The archive itself: > >>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > >>>> > >>>> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out > >>>> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). > >>>> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you > >>>> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, > >>>> [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and > >>>> its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > >>>> > >>>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > >>>> > >>>> An update to the provided XML file > >>>> — OR — > >>>> An explicit list of changes in this format > >>>> > >>>> Section # (or indicate Global) > >>>> > >>>> OLD: > >>>> old text > >>>> > >>>> NEW: > >>>> new text > >>>> > >>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit > >>>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > >>>> > >>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem > >>>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, > >>>> and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in > >>>> the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream > >>>> manager. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Approving for publication > >>>> -------------------------- > >>>> > >>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating > >>>> that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, > >>>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Files > >>>> ----- > >>>> > >>>> The files are available here: > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9923.xml > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9923.html > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9923.pdf > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9923.txt > >>>> > >>>> Diff file of the text: > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9923-diff.html > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9923-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > >>>> > >>>> Diff of the XML: > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9923-xmldiff1.html > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Tracking progress > >>>> ----------------- > >>>> > >>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9923 > >>>> > >>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. > >>>> > >>>> Thank you for your cooperation, > >>>> > >>>> RFC Editor > >>>> > >>>> -------------------------------------- > >>>> RFC9923 (draft-eastlake-fnv-35) > >>>> > >>>> Title : The FNV Non-Cryptographic Hash Algorithm > >>>> Author(s) : G. Fowler, L. Noll, K. Vo, D. Eastlake 3rd, T. Hansen > >>>> WG Chair(s) : > >>>> Area Director(s) : > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
