Ok. Thanks, Lynn.
Don, Phong Vo, and Landon:
Please review the documents and indicate further edits or approve.
Eliot
On 14.01.2026 18:43, Lynne Bartholomew wrote:
Hi, Landon. Great; thanks for the ack.
Lynne Bartholomew
RFC Production Center
On Jan 13, 2026, at 3:52 PM, Landon Curt Noll<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Lynne Bartholomew,
The text looks good, thanks for your help!
— Landon Noll
On Jan 13, 2026, at 09:31, Lynne Bartholomew<[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi, Landon.
Per your latest note, we updated the paragraph at the end of Section 1.3 to
use<http://www.isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/fnv/index.html#address> instead
of<http://www.isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/fnv/index.html#history>.
How about replacing the above "original text" with:
if you use an FNV function in an application, you are kindly
requested to send a note via the process outlined
at<http://www.isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/fnv/index.html#history>.
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 Jan 13, 2026, at 1:54 AM, Landon Curt Noll<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Lynne Bartholomew,
I do not wish to have an email address in the paragraph at the end of Section
1.3.
My request is to ether use the URL:
http://www.isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/fnv/index.html#address
in the paragraph at the end of Section 1.3,
or some other non-email method of contact,
or failing that to remove the paragraph please.
Please advise.
— Landon Noll
On Jan 12, 2026, at 09:34, Lynne Bartholomew<[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi, Landon and Donald.
Landon, regarding this note from you:
How about replacing the above "original text" with:
if you use an FNV function in an application, you are kindly
requested to send a note via the process outlined
at<http://www.isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/fnv/index.html#history>.
Do you still want to restore this paragraph at the end of Section 1.3? One option would be to
use the <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> email address
instead of <http://www.isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/fnv/index.html#history>. Please let us
know your preference.
Possibly (per the original, but using<[email protected]> instead of the
fnvhash-mail address):
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, we have corrected the code per your note below. Apologies, as it
appears that we accidentally removed one backslash during a previous update
(between Dec. 22 and Dec. 23).
The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser, review our
latest updates carefully, and let us know any concerns:
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
Donald, we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9923
Thank you!
Lynne Bartholomew
RFC Production Center
From: Donald Eastlake<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: *LANDON, PAY ATTENTION* Re: [ISE] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9923
<draft-eastlake-fnv-35> for your review
Date: January 8, 2026 at 5:46:38 PM PST
To: Lynne Bartholomew<[email protected]>
Cc: "Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot
Lear)"<[email protected]>,[email protected],[email protected],"[email protected]"
<[email protected]>,[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected]
Hi Lynne,
Thanks for the good news that "makefile" is approved as a source code type.
I have extracted the source code from today's .txt version and found
that there is one missing character. In section 8.3, search for
"#define TestInitBasis". That area of the code is defining a number of
C preprocessor macros. These definitions are separated by a black
line. If you look at them, you will note that, for each definition,
all of the lines end with a backslash ("\") except the last line of
each definition. In the definition of TestInitBasis this \ is missing
at the end of the second line. With the addition of that character, my
tests of the code all work.
I approve publication of this version with the one character fix above.
Thanks,
Donald
===============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
[email protected]
On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 12:46 PM Lynne Bartholomew
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi, Eliot. Correct! All of our questions have been resolved.
Before we can move this document forward for publication, we will need all
authors to approve this document for publication in its current form --
assuming that no further changes are needed.
We will then need your final approval.
Here's the link to the AUTH48 status page:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9923
Thanks for asking about this!
Lynne Bartholomew
RFC Production Center
On Jan 7, 2026, at 9:09 AM, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot
Lear)<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Lynne,
Just to confirm state, you re now looking for author and ISE apprvoals, right?
Eliot
On 07.01.2026 18:02, Lynne Bartholomew wrote:
Hi, Donald, Eliot, and Paul.
Thank you for the emails. We have removed the last paragraph of Section 1.3 (the pointer to the
"fnvhash-mail" email address) as well as the citation and listing for [Cohesia].
(Removing mention of [Cohesia] provides the side benefit of also removing any question of what
"MASS" stands for.)
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
Side note: Good news -- "makefile" has been added as an approved sourcecode type
on<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>.
Thanks again!
Lynne Bartholomew
RFC Production Center
On Jan 8, 2026, at 12:42 PM, Landon Curt Noll<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello RFC Editor/lb,
If I need to have an email address for myself in the document, please
use"[email protected]".
The previous request was under the impression that I could go without an email
address in the document.
However, if I must have an email address for myself in the document, please
use"[email protected]".
— Landon Noll
On Jan 8, 2026, at 12:02, Lynne Bartholomew<[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi, Eliot and Landon.
We see that Landon's email of yesterday (pasted below under the "= = = = = = = =", for context)
said "Please remove"[email protected]" from the draft".
Please confirm that we now want to list"[email protected]" as Landon's
email address in this document.
Thank you.
RFC Editor/lb
On Jan 8, 2026, at 11:43 AM, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot
Lear)<[email protected]> wrote:
Yeah to be clear, the email address we're discussing here is a personal one,
and Landon has a specific address that he wants used, which
[email protected]. Mailing lists dedicated to support are a different
matter.
Eliot
On 08.01.2026 20:40, Landon Curt Noll wrote:
Please NO!!!
On Jan 8, 2026, at 09:04, Lynne Bartholomew<[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi, Landon.
* Regarding these notes from you:
I agree about the use of email addresses in the document. I would STRONGLY
prefer not to have an email address in the RFC.
... I would STRONGLY prefer not to have my email address listed in the RFC.
Per Section 4.12 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"
--https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7322.txt), "Contact information must include a long-lived
email address").
For now, we have listed the email address provided
on<http://www.isthe.com/chongo/address.html>; your contact information now
appears as follows. Please let us know if you would prefer to use a different email
address:
Landon Curt Noll
Email:[email protected]
URI:http://www.isthe.com/chongo
NO!!! DO NOT [email protected] !!!!
PLEASE !!!
[email protected]
— Landon Noll
= = = = = = = =
From: Landon Curt Noll<[email protected]>
Subject: LANDON's reply to Re: [ISE] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9923
<draft-eastlake-fnv-35> for your review
Date: January 7, 2026 at 12:06:55 PM PST
To: "Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)"<[email protected]>, Paul
Wouters<[email protected]>
Cc: Donald Eastlake<[email protected]>, Lynne
Bartholomew<[email protected]>,[email protected],"[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, Glenn Fowler<[email protected]>, Phong
Vo<[email protected]>,[email protected]
Hello,
On Jan 7, 2026, at 05:14, Paul Wouters<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 3:57 AM Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot
Lear)<[email protected]> wrote:
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.
I agree.
I agree about the use of email addresses in the document. I would STRONGLY
prefer not to have an email address in the RFC.
=-=
How about replacing the above "original text" with:
if you use an FNV function in an application, you are kindly
requested to send a note via the process outlined
at<http://www.isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/fnv/index.html#history>.
=-=
While we are on the subject of "RFCs are meant to be timeless, and people are not": Please change: Landon Curt Noll Cisco Systems 170 West Tasman
Drive San Jose, California 95134 United States of America Phone:
+1-408-424-1102 Email: [email protected] URI:
http://www.isthe.com/chongo/index.html To, just: Landon Curt Noll
URI: http://www.isthe.com/chongo Or: Landon Curt Noll URI:
http://www.isthe.com/chongo/address.html I am no longer associated
with Cisco: I’m retired. The FNV hash was developed long before I
even worked for Cisco. I would STRONGLY prefer not to have my email
address listed in the RFC. Please remove "[email protected]" from the draft.
<!-- [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.
And I agree here too.
I agree as well.
— Landon Curt Noll
