Re: [Rfc-markdown] Submissions rejected because of postal glitch
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 03 November 2020 08:53 UTC
Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 64C5B3A0D42
for <rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 00:53:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
header.d=mnot.net header.b=piHi9zit;
dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=f0Szcv+L
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 5vO0oYl7SRDs for <rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Tue, 3 Nov 2020 00:52:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com
[64.147.123.19])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20E893A1540
for <rfc-markdown@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 00:52:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42])
by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD04195D;
Tue, 3 Nov 2020 03:52:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163])
by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 03 Nov 2020 03:52:56 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h=
content-type:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject
:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; s=fm1; bh=k9DBVUW
eY4xf09oNhDewoPwX3b+JYAGktObcVYw6Uco=; b=piHi9zitIti8cGqyjyha42H
Xru6y9qGFAnL+Vq4eIregHtYsIimyUJb4UpXwx4E39cPXmK4x05DsG/ueyFDKfu3
9ZibE3T2yy9mEnhIeZmKqZ/V5gtv27iBoGXN0GvX0ZEt1SAsFv4RZAcX3tbXqiZC
N0uRR5/Ky7/De4IzGyTD5e2Me9uVEaa3Hpyk8kXBPsRzUgMYDyj44BT1KueaLcLE
1e6u7fdMu6KNrxhzXlQhP7k2P7cvN3PLehdk6km626fWobTmzx4fAFJtSuuGBkJu
E+oxMUpH6C4Y4j5k+3xnMR+5yyyOP/1zUgqbOCVzvgNB7EMGDErM73H0Dq5pmFA=
=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type
:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references
:subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender
:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=k9DBVUWeY4xf09oNhDewoPwX3b+JYAGktObcVYw6U
co=; b=f0Szcv+Lrge2MbT+vdqQHt++d9hp8smora3ffbQrmN9aLIkKuWEELC7V5
cZ8h91mu/LZCDjQgfCJBz+TrTKFuL2iwnRXY6YvpHOTK0uQ66m6ueZuLwdnucQdB
Ev8jyESc3ojvlwlRThC+96pD9fXmtQHS07qaPn/HQlous12aGlsDn0FaqLaakQb5
vjFbtxaIgongtgkj4p/EPsYnIq+wlglZYAAkouNDtWLXAIpd+6r9ylSpnrosNQlc
SMAA0CZIyul+LkvAiSLAE2co4/EevJn3xby66KpRPiH60CHhv1yGg6cZ/Eqhvx9j
8lITU/TFqTML3RbOgPYN3hBVXiCuQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:ZxqhX5v3_iNVbzyNVJfVm4ZdOiUs585ccp9T2X1OjICb7Nv3ECfN3A>
<xme:ZxqhXyfL3lpeEX3TuRZPzPaUKdRBAvujSbj2wske8-39raFQE7gBCBo3-tD0zUi1s
3fLmmrO56ZtGZcrfg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedruddtvddguddvudcutefuodetggdotefrod
ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh
necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd
enucfjughrpegtgffhggfufffkfhgjvffosehtqhhmtdhhtdejnecuhfhrohhmpeforghr
khcupfhothhtihhnghhhrghmuceomhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrth
htvghrnhepteefieevveeutdeuffdtteegleevffekgeelveegteejueehgfetieeuvdef
geeunecuffhomhgrihhnpehivghtfhdrohhrghenucfkphepudduledrudejrdduheekrd
dvhedunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhep
mhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvth
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:ZxqhX8zhtezAAuFRv3yfv5q9JYDvsTUrk_P9yx8RByGYaPNITGDkMg>
<xmx:ZxqhXwPYQYfrJ9Wi3IKnDb9Tl1Z2C5z48UXCAl9VvsiLkIvrs7qM-Q>
<xmx:ZxqhX59vI7jFjgMlkHyDuCfx96B215hJpSPgEBJSiDawLy5ARXDRLQ>
<xmx:aBqhX7Ixq176lJfAYevgoVn6rO_JI4hMw9dRhWi8Agxb6M7z7Tc6Xg>
Received: from [192.168.33.218] (119-17-158-251.77119e.mel.static.aussiebb.net
[119.17.158.251])
by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id CE4183064674;
Tue, 3 Nov 2020 03:52:54 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 19:52:50 +1100
Message-Id: <EC318B51-A747-4561-9652-7525F575D9FB@mnot.net>
References: <F3031B1B-4098-4388-8EB7-7C3C7DD078A0@tzi.org>
Cc: rfc-markdown@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <F3031B1B-4098-4388-8EB7-7C3C7DD078A0@tzi.org>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18A8395)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-markdown/wVZLfXpyl1r_52Mj-gX760wpFyU>
Subject: Re: [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 08:53:01 -0000
Yes. Sent from my iPhone > On 3 Nov 2020, at 6:57 pm, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote: > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Rfc-markdown mailing list > Rfc-markdown@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-markdown
- [Rfc-markdown] Submissions rejected because of po… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Rfc-markdown] Submissions rejected because o… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [Rfc-markdown] Submissions rejected because o… Julian Reschke
- Re: [Rfc-markdown] Submissions rejected because o… Carsten Bormann