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

John R Levine johnl at taugh.com
Thu Jun 10 19:53:46 PDT 2021

> What's the hassle?

If you'll refer back to my original message, the code that tries to turn 
the subfields of <postal> into a formatted address depend on an 
abandonware database.

I suppose we could go back and reissue all of the existing XML RFCs that 
have postal addresses with <postalline> rather than what's there now, but 
I don't think we are anywhere near consensus on revising published XML.

> Have you tried to gather evidence?

About what?  If there is evidence that the postal addresses are useful, 
I'd be happy to hear about it.  All we've seen is along the lines of well, 
someone might use it for X, but in practice they don't.

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