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

Mark Nottingham mnot at mnot.net
Tue Jul 13 19:32:34 PDT 2021


WFM. Will you add some prose that the first from isn't preferred? 

Cheers,


> On 14 Jul 2021, at 11:57 am, John R Levine <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2021, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> It's not clear what John's proposed resolution is (if any).
> 
> Here's what we came up with on Monday.  The current schema for <postal> is:
> 
> ( ( city | cityarea | code | country | extaddr | pobox | region | sortingcode | street )*
>  | postalLine+ )
> 
> We propose a small tweak:
> 
> ( ( city | cityarea | code | country | extaddr | pobox | region | sortingcode | street )*
>  | postalLine+  country? )
> 
> That is, we still allow the current syntax, in which we render just the country, getting rid of the problem of what order to render the rest.
> 
> Or you can give a sequence of postallines with an optional country, in which we render the whole list in order.
> 
> The point of adding the country after the postallines is so that scripts that are doing country statistics don't have to guess whether the last postalline is the country.
> 
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

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



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list