[rfc-i] Changes to the v3 <postal> element

John R Levine johnl at taugh.com
Fri Jun 11 08:38:16 PDT 2021

> I have a lot of sympathy with what John is proposing here, discussions about the proper process (important!) notwithstanding.
>> On 2021-06-11, at 01:54, John R Levine <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:
>> The one part we care most about from <postal/> is <country/>.  This enables
>> people to do things like gather statistics about where RFCs originate, such as
>> https://www.arkko.com/tools/rfcstats/d-countrydistr.html
> The problem with doing this is that it removes the postalLine alternative.
> Or, the other way around, if we want to preserve postalLine, we make country inaccessible to those that use postalLine.

Well, OK, but that's not enough.  We have found that the current set of 
fields won't let us render addresses consistently in the future.  My 
suggestion is to say the addresses aren't important, so don't render them 
at all.  If they are important and we want to keep postalline, we
need to go back and change the published RFCs to use postalline instead so 
they can be rendered later without the abandonware format library.

We could do that, but it seems way more effort than it's worth.

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