[rfc-i] summary of Removing postal information from RFCs

Mark Nottingham mnot at mnot.net
Tue Jul 13 18:45:38 PDT 2021


It's not clear what John's proposed resolution is (if any).

Like Brian, I'm fine if the proposal is to deprecate (= disallow in future RFCs) the <city> etc. elements, but still accommodate <postalLine>.

Cheers,


> On 12 Jul 2021, at 3:30 pm, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 12-Jul-21 15:48, John Levine wrote:
>> It appears that Brian E Carpenter  <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> said:
>>> On 12-Jul-21 14:33, John R Levine wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021, Larry Masinter wrote:
>>>>> Why do people want to do standards in the IETF rather just editing a spec in
>>>>> Google Docs or GitHub? One primary value that IETF adds is some kind of
>>>>> legal action due to copyright or patent claimed infringement, or anti-trust.
>>>>> It's the reason why there is a NOTE WELL.
>>>> 
>>>> FWIW, I have been a trustee of the IETF Trust for the past four years and 
>>>> the identities of IETF contributors have never been an issue.  That's not 
>>>> a very compelling argument.
>>> 
>>> IANAL, but surely what counts in prior art claims is certification that
>>> a document *was* published , not which particular Jane Doe  wrote it.
>> 
>> It has never been a problem so far, but we trustees do worry about a
>> scenario in which an I-D or an RFC contains text that was borrowed
>> from someone else and the someone else objects. We have a process that
>> shows good faith but if we coudn't find the person who did the
>> borrowing, it could be messy.
> 
> Yes, I can see that, but it would be messy (for example) to look for
> someone whose affiliation and street address belong to a no-longer
> existing company; so messy cases probably come with the territory. 
> 
>>> Also, do we actually have an issue here? Supplying a full address is
>>> already optional, judging by a number of recent RFCs.
>> 
>> The issue that precipitated this is that if you do provide an address,
>> the complex format we're currently using turns out to depend on an
>> abandonware formatting library.
> 
> Understood. I agree that the obvious short-term measure is to advise
> use of <postalLine>. Worry about changing the formal definition later.
> 
>   Brian
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list