RE: Length of address fields (Re: EPP To-Do List)

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

Asbjorn,

The 30-character limit is there because it conforms to an existing postal
addressing standard for paper labels, which I don't have handy at the
moment.  I tried to find some kind of international standard, and that was
the best I found, though I'll admit it's not necessarily the most
appropriate one to follow.

This did come up on the list in the past, but as I look through the archives
I can't seem to find the appropriate message(s).  No matter, I don't mind
increasing the length, even doubling it, if that's what others think we
should do.

Any objections?  Would 64 (a power of two) characters allow some
implementation efficiencies?

<Scott/> 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asbjorn.rrp@theglobalname.org
> [mailto:asbjorn.rrp@theglobalname.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 11:46 AM
> To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
> Subject: Length of address fields (Re: EPP To-Do List)
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> reading through contact-02 again, I noticed that the maximum length of
> postalLineType is 30. This means that no City names, 
> Registrant names, Street
> names, or Organization names can be longer than 30 characters.
> 
> I can't remember this being brought up before, but I strongly 
> believe that this
> is too short. I propose increasing it, maybe even doubling it to 60.
> 
> 
> Asbjorn Steira
> Global Name Registry