[rfc-i] Removing postal information from RFCs [was: Changes to the v3 <postal> element]

Mark Nottingham mnot at mnot.net
Thu Jun 10 19:47:53 PDT 2021



> On 11 Jun 2021, at 12:47 pm, John R Levine <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:
> 
>>> On 11 Jun 2021, at 12:21 pm, John Levine <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> It appears that Mark Nottingham  <mnot at mnot.net> said:
>>>> Please clarify - do you intend to deprecate postalLine as well?
>>> 
>>> Yes, we're deprecating all of the <postal> subelements except <country>.
>> 
>> I don't see how deprecating <postalLine> follows from the problems you describe; if anything, they validate that it was the correct approach, and that the more detailed elements that were defined as an alternative were a mistake.
>> 
>> My understanding is that the rfc7991bis effort was focused on minimal changes; this doesn't seem aligned with that. What you're really doing here is proposing that postal information be removed from RFCs altogether, which is a pretty substantial change. I've adjusted the Subject line to better reflect this.
> 
> It's true that a fair number of RFCs have postal addresses.  The question is whether including those addresses is worth the hassle of collecting them.  We didn't see much evidence that it is.

What's the hassle?

Have you tried to gather evidence?


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



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list