Re: [ire] CSV: contactPostal clarification question

Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de> Fri, 18 October 2013 07:38 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 746B221F9ED1 for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 00:38:43 -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 yEl81ZmeBcMu for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 00:38:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de (clust3c.bbone.knipp.de [195.253.6.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DAE221F9E46 for <ire@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 00:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.bbone.knipp.de [127.0.0.1]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1669A4A; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:38:36 +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 YY5tTbqP2gmU; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:38:28 +0200 (MESZ)
Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FF0549; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:38:28 +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 r9I7cRDP028180; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:38:28 +0200 (MESZ)
Message-ID: <5260E57A.9030002@knipp.de>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:38:34 +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: "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com>, "ire@ietf.org" <ire@ietf.org>
References: <CE8679E3.5041D%jgould@verisign.com>
In-Reply-To: <CE8679E3.5041D%jgould@verisign.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [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: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 07:38:43 -0000

On 17.10.2013 22:52, Gould, James wrote:
> Klaus,
>
> Yes, you are correct.  If a registry decided to implement the "int" and
> "loc" type of <contact:postalInfo> using a single record with a set of
> columns per type.  I do not believe this is optimal but it is certainly
> possible.  We could tighten up the draft to normalize this with splitting
> of the columns into separate CSV records by making the
> csvContact:fPostalType field required for the "contactPostal" CSV file.
> What do you think?
>


Hi James,

please don't ask me -- I would like to immediately scrap the whole CSV part ;-). 
So the proponents of this format should decide. In general, the less options the 
better. However, I can live with the option of having both sets in a single row.

Regards,

Klaus