Subject: [Xml-sg-cmt] Proposed message to rfc-interest about <postal>

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 6 Jun 2021 17:56:53 -0400

Here's what I plan to send out, with bits borrowed from Peter:

One of the changes to the xml v3 grammar since RFC 7991 is a new <postal> 
element with a set of subfields such as <street>, <region>, and <code>. To 
render addresses we use a python library that depends on an open source address 
database originally from Google.  While tracking down a rendering bug, we found 
that the rendering database is not actively maintained and has a long list of 
unresolved pull requests.  We don't know of any other source of rendering 
patterns.

But we don't see a strong reason for readers to need the full postal address 
for RFC authors. Anecdotally, on rare occasions readers have used the postal 
address but (a) the email address is primary since <postal/> is optional and 
(b) readers likely have better ways to find contact information for RFC 
authors.

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

Our proposal is to deprecate all of the <postal> elements other than the 
<country/> element.  Authors can include them if they want, but they won't be 
rendered and the RPC won't ask for them.  We think this leaves the useful bit 
of info while avoiding a lot of work for minimal benefit.

If there are issues we've missed, please let us know.

R's,
John

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:49:39 +0200

Hi John,

I believe we also said we'd permit <country/> as a sibling to <postal/> in
the schema, so that we later could deprecate and remove <postal/> entirely,
but still keep <country/>.

	Henrik

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 17:37:54 -0600

After discussion on Monday I think that's no longer the direction we'd
prefer. :-)

John, your message looks good to me.

Peter

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 Jun 2021 19:43:29 -0400

> John, your message looks good to me.

OK, will send it.

>>> If there are issues we've missed, please let us know.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly