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

John R Levine johnl at taugh.com
Tue Jul 13 19:36:37 PDT 2021


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

It's not just unpreferred, it's deprecated.

>
> 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/
>
>

Regards,
John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list