Hi everyone and happy new year!
Two points:
On 07.01.2026 05:01, Donald Eastlake wrote:
= = = = =
Also, these two questions are still pending. We are fine with leaving the email address
"as is" if it still works, but we believe that the question regarding the
[Cohesia] reference needs to be resolved (perhaps, as Donald noted earlier, it can be
deleted?). Please advise:
<!-- [rfced] Section 1.2: Please confirm that
<[email protected]> is still a valid, working email address.
Original:
If you use an FNV function in an application, you are kindly
requested to send an EMail about it to<[email protected]> with
"FNV hash function" forming part of the subject line.
Donald Eastlake: I'll let other authors respond on that. -->
I believe that is OK but Landon Knoll would know best.
I prefer that the reference to an email address for a private concern be
dropped. These RFCs are mean to be timeless, and people are not. That
having been said, I won't stand on my head on this point.
<!-- [rfced] References: The provided link for [Cohesia] steers to
<https://cohesia.com/>, which is a business financing site. We could
not find a relationship to the bullet item in Section 1.2. Should a
different website be listed here?
Original:
* [Cohesia] MASS project server collision avoidance,
...
[Cohesia] Cohesia, "Cohesia website",<http://www.cohesia.com/>.
Donald Eastlake: I don't know what this reference is supposed to be. Maybe
another author can come up with information as to why we added it. If not, it
should be deleted. -->
Given that multiple attempts to find an FNV reference in the current
Cohesia site, I am increasingly convinced it should just be dropped.
+1.
Best regards,
Eliot
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
