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

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Jun 11 08:46:12 PDT 2021


Am 11.06.2021 um 17:38 schrieb John R Levine:
>> 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.
> ...

I understand that you want to avoid that, but I'm pretty sure that at
some point, we'll have to do that anyway.

(Another issue that might require that is the cleanup of the seriesInfo
mess).

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list