[rfc-i] Remove some requirements on element order

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Mon Jan 6 08:53:10 PST 2014

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2014-01-06 16:32, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 2014, at 8:31 PM, Martin J. Dürst <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>
>> wrote:
>>> Actually, that's overkill. The problem can be solved much simpler. Just
>>> have a postal address as a free-form element, with the newlines possibly
>>> being relevant for formatting.
>> +1
>> There is no real value to having any structure to the postal addresses in
>> RFCs, is there?

+1.  This is metadata that is too complex to preserve (because the
rules for postal address composition and parsing vary a lot by
locale).  RFC/I-D author postal addresses have rarely ever been
helpful, perhaps not really helpful for more than 20 years.

> Well, we could run statistics on the postal addresses of authors :-)

Point taken.  I do see a distinction between this case and the
referenced document format URIs (I gave at least two use cases for
it).  I articulated a principle that metadata that is of use should be
expressible in the schema.  It's trivial to come up with useless
metadata (authors' favorite colors, ...).  Postal addresses have been
there and remain there for what I think must be traditional reasons,
but author postal address information strikes me as useless.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list