Hi Lynne, On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 12:49 PM Lynne Bartholomew <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Donald and Tony. > > Thank you for the emails. Tony, Happy New Year to you as well! > > Donald, we've further updated this document per your notes below. Apologies > for missing the parentheses around "digest" in the "return" call in Stefan's > code; we added them. > > Please let us know if you have any concerns regarding the following: > > * Implementing HTML- and PDF-output superscripts in text and in Table 1 > resulted in the caret character ("^") in the text file, instead of the > original double asterisks ("**"). We also see the caret used in code > comments in Section 8 (e.g., "/* 32-bit FNV_prime = 2^24 + 2^8 + 0x93 */"), > so this seems fine to us, but we want to make sure that it's fine with you as > well. > > * We changed "the 2**9 bit" to "the 2^9 bit" (superscripted in the HTML- and > PDF-output files). Please let us know if this is incorrect.
I think that's all OK. > = = = = = > > Also, these two questions are still pending. We are fine with leaving the > email address "as is" if it still works, but we believe that the question > regarding the [Cohesia] reference needs to be resolved (perhaps, as Donald > noted earlier, it can be deleted?). Please advise: > > <!-- [rfced] Section 1.2: Please confirm that > <[email protected]> is still a valid, working email address. > > Original: > If you use an FNV function in an application, you are kindly > requested to send an EMail about it to <[email protected]> with > "FNV hash function" forming part of the subject line. > > Donald Eastlake: I'll let other authors respond on that. --> I believe that is OK but Landon Knoll would know best. > <!-- [rfced] References: The provided link for [Cohesia] steers to > <https://cohesia.com/>, which is a business financing site. We could > not find a relationship to the bullet item in Section 1.2. Should a > different website be listed here? > > Original: > * [Cohesia] MASS project server collision avoidance, > ... > [Cohesia] Cohesia, "Cohesia website", <http://www.cohesia.com/>. > > Donald Eastlake: I don't know what this reference is supposed to be. Maybe > another author can come up with information as to why we added it. If not, it > should be deleted. --> Given that multiple attempts to find an FNV reference in the current Cohesia site, I am increasingly convinced it should just be dropped. 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 > > Thanks again! > > Lynne Bartholomew > RFC Production Center > > > > On Jan 5, 2026, at 2:01 PM, HANSEN, TONY L <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > I reviewed all of Donald’s comments. I agree with everything he’s written. > > > > Regarding MASS, it appears that the company Cohesia had a trademark at one > > point for something called MASS, and it appears that it was for something > > that included an algorithm that must have used FNV. However I have been > > unable to confirm what MASS stood for. > > > > Happy New Year everyone. > > > > Tony > > > On Jan 5, 2026, at 11:13 AM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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]
