[ire] CSV: contactPostal clarification question

Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de> Wed, 16 October 2013 12:53 UTC

Return-Path: <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
X-Original-To: ire@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ire@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCF8E11E81CF for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 05:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fC-SM-SHfGqQ for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 05:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de (clust3c.bbone.knipp.de [195.253.6.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9F3921F9F08 for <ire@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 05:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.bbone.knipp.de [127.0.0.1]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB8B352; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:53:11 +0200 (MESZ)
X-Knipp-VirusScanned: Yes
Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (kmx10a.knipp.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10004) with ESMTP id qsPlzbFqYsUg; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:53:06 +0200 (MESZ)
Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1578E50; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:53:06 +0200 (MESZ)
Received: from [195.253.2.27] (mclane.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.27]) by hp9000.do.knipp.de (@(#)Sendmail version 8.13.3 - Revision 1.000 - 1st August,2006/8.13.3) with ESMTP id r9GCr5fg025048; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:53:06 +0200 (MESZ)
Message-ID: <525E8C38.2040002@knipp.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:53:12 +0200
From: Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/27.0a1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ire@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [ire] CSV: contactPostal clarification question
X-BeenThere: ire@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Internet Registration Escrow discussion list." <ire.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ire>, <mailto:ire-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ire>
List-Post: <mailto:ire@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ire-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ire>, <mailto:ire-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:53:19 -0000

Hi all,

I am still a bit puzzled about the "contactPostal" table, containing the 
internationalized/localized postal data (section 5.3.2, pages 55 et seqq. of [1]).

On the one hand, there is a flag field, csvContact:fPostalType, which indicates 
whether name, organization, street, city, state/province, postal and country 
code fields shall be regarded as internationalized or localized. On the other 
hand, these fields may contain their own "isLoc" attribute, indicating their 
designation.

Are these alternatives? I.e. one registry could decide to use the fPostalType. 
In this case, the fields themselves would not use the "isLoc" attribute. A row 
would contain either the internationalized _or_ the localized data set, but 
never both. So the registry would have to actually use two rows in the case that 
it wants to provide both. Or the registry could decide not to use the 
fPostalType, but to add the isLoc attribute to the field definitions. In this 
case, a row could contain data for the internationalized _or_ localized _or_ 
both data sets.

Is this correct?

Regards,

Klaus


[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping-05