IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Rfc-markdown] Submissions rejected because of postal glitch

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 03 November 2020 07:57 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0A073A1085 for <rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 23:57:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kprUe2JUBN7y for <rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 23:57:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0E983A1510 for <rfc-markdown@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 23:57:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dcc60.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CQMZ744LhzydX; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 08:57:03 +0100 (CET)
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 626083022.939027-077b640751825d20febf534db84513dc
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 08:57:03 +0100
Message-Id: <F3031B1B-4098-4388-8EB7-7C3C7DD078A0@tzi.org>
To: rfc-markdown@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-markdown/BzlCMwsZGXiAZmj-8YCqLXwLkks>
Subject: [Rfc-markdown] Submissions rejected because of postal glitch
X-BeenThere: rfc-markdown@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "rfc-markdown is a discussion list for people writing I-Ds and RFCs in Markdown and the authors of the tools used for that." <rfc-markdown.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rfc-markdown>, <mailto:rfc-markdown-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfc-markdown/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-markdown@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-markdown-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-markdown>, <mailto:rfc-markdown-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 07:57:08 -0000

No, it’s not about USPS being destroyed deliberately, this time:

Error: Unable to validate the XML document: INPUT
INPUT: Line 44: Element postal content does not follow the DTD, expecting (street+ , (city | region | code | country)*), got (city code country )

Locally, xml2rfc has no problem processing this document, but the submission failed anyway.
Apparently, the validator employed in the submission tool insists on there being a street (and that not being empty!?) in a postal element.

Has anybody else ran into this inconsistency?

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email