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