Re: [provreg] RFC 5733: street changes with contact:update

Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de> Fri, 15 November 2013 09:16 UTC

Return-Path: <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4D611E810A for <provreg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 01:16:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 2o+jggxhe7aE for <provreg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 01:16:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de (clust3b.bbone.knipp.de [195.253.6.85]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 242B011E8109 for <provreg@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 01:16:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.bbone.knipp.de [127.0.0.1]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE5154C; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:16:16 +0100 (MEZ)
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 Ul3v5HFO652A; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:16:06 +0100 (MEZ)
Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34BD94A; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:16:05 +0100 (MEZ)
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 rAF9G4fW021999; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:16:05 +0100 (MEZ)
Message-ID: <5285E65B.1050400@knipp.de>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:16:11 +0100
From: Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/28.0a1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?6b2Q6LaF?= <qichao@cnnic.cn>, "provreg@ietf.org" <provreg@ietf.org>
References: <5284EE10.5020809@knipp.de> <2013111510482550010180@cnnic.cn>
In-Reply-To: <2013111510482550010180@cnnic.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [provreg] RFC 5733: street changes with contact:update
X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: EPP discussion list <provreg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/provreg>, <mailto:provreg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/provreg>
List-Post: <mailto:provreg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:provreg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg>, <mailto:provreg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:16:25 -0000

On 15.11.2013 03:48, 齐超 wrote:
> Hello, Klaus,
> I think it is necessary to come to a conclusion what is meaning of  label
> <contact:street> :
> 1, two <street> is alternative
>
>     C:            <contact:street>one address</contact:street>
>     C:            <contact:street>another address</contact:street>
>     C:            <contact:city>Dulles</contact:city>
>     C:            <contact:sp>VA</contact:sp>
>     C:            <contact:pc>20166-6503</contact:pc>
>     C:            <contact:cc>US</contact:cc>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2, two <street>  compose to a complete address
>
>     C:            <contact:street>high level of address</contact:street>
>     C:            <contact:street>low level of address</contact:street>
>     C:            <contact:city>Dulles</contact:city>
>     C:            <contact:sp>VA</contact:sp>
>     C:            <contact:pc>20166-6503</contact:pc>
>     C:            <contact:cc>US</contact:cc>
>
> for 1, replacing one is reasonable
> for 2, replacing all is reasonable.
> The RFC5733 example is :
>
>     C:            <contact:addr>
>     C:              <contact:street>124 Example Dr.</contact:street>
>     C:              <contact:street>Suite 200</contact:street>
>     C:              <contact:city>Dulles</contact:city>
>     C:              <contact:sp>VA</contact:sp>
>     C:              <contact:pc>20166-6503</contact:pc>
>     C:              <contact:cc>US</contact:cc>
>     C:            </contact:addr>
>
> Two streets 'Suite 200' and '124 Example Dr.' is not distinct for me...

Hi 齐超,

I think it is clearly the second case. If these would be alternative addresses, 
then it would probably not be sufficient just to specify different streets. The 
locations could be in different urban districts (maybe causing different postal 
codes) or even different cities, states/provinces and countries. There are 
multiple streets to give room for more specific addresses, for example for large 
business buildings hosting a lot of companies, to specify departmental 
information in large companies or to allow different addressing schemes -- the 
western scheme of street names and house numbers are not necessarily applied 
world-wide.

Regards,

Klaus