Subject: #1309 resolution "no change" suggested - USEFOR 3.2.7 - Distribution header field needs more description

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:47:51 -0700

The current text of this section is:

3.2.7.  Distribution

   The Distribution header field specifies geographic or organizational
   limits on an article's propagation.

   distribution    =  "Distribution:" SP dist-list CRLF

   dist-list       =  *WSP dist-name
                      *( [FWS] "," [FWS] dist-name ) *WSP

   dist-name       =  ALPHA / DIGIT
                      *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "-" / "_" )

   The <dist-name>s "world" and "local" are predefined.  However,
   "world" SHOULD NOT be used explicitly, since it is the default when
   the Distribution header field is absent entirely.

   "All" MUST NOT be used as a <dist-name>. <dist-name>s SHOULD contain
   at least three characters, except when they are two-letter country
   names drawn from [ISO.3166.1988]. <dist-name>s are case-insensitive
   (i.e.  "US", "Us", "uS", and "us" all specify the same distribution).

   [FWS] in the <dist-list> SHOULD NOT be generated, but MUST be
   accepted.

Ralph's comment was

3.2.7.  Distribution
|
| The Distribution header field specifies geographic or
| organizational limits on an article's propagation.

Doesn't say a whole lot about how it actually _works_.
A few words to the effect that a site may consider itself
(or others) to be a member of one or more <dist-name>s?

| The <dist-name>s "world" and "local" are predefined.

Where? In which way?

| "All" MUST NOT be used as a <dist-name>.

So it's sort of predefined as well, isn't it?

I suggest to resolve this by "no change" - the details belong in USEPRO, 
they're not part of the article format. We could add Yet Another pointer 
to USEPRO, but I don't see a value in that - we already have 10 forward 
pointers to it.

Comments?

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:08:00 -0700

>   the Distribution header field is absent entirely.

In general, I agree with deferring this for USEPRO; I think that's what
happens as a result of our split.  However, the one part that does still
bother me is the "predefined" part on this.

I think what we're really trying to say is:

    The <dist-name>s "world" and "local" are reserved.  "world" indicates
    unlimited distribution and SHOULD NOT be used explicitly, since it is
    the default when the Distribution header field is absent entirely.
    "local" is reserved for indicating distribution only to the local
    site, as defined by local software configuration.

That gets into the definition of "local" to some degree, but it's just one
sentence and stating that (fairly general) sentence seems better to me
than replacing it with a reference to USEPRO.

The above wording avoids introducing the term "predefined."

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:20:46 -0700

> The above wording avoids introducing the term "predefined."
I like that.

                 Harald

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:12:48 +0200

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

 [distribution]
> two-letter country names drawn from [ISO.3166.1988].
 [...] 
> Comments?

The CS disaster was after 1988.  Does that mean we inherit it,
or is ISO.3166.1988 meant as frozen state of those in practice
irrelevant distribution codes ?  Or do we decide this later in
USEPRO ?

Bye, Frank

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:28:29 +0200

> irrelevant distribution codes ?  Or do we decide this later in
ISO 3166.1988 includes procedures for updating, so a reasonable 
interpretation is that it refers to the list of currently valid country 
codes.
If we want to nitpick ourselves to death on this issue (no big news 
here), we can adopt relevant language from LTRU.
Or we can leave it alone.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:24:30 +0200

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> a reasonable interpretation is that it refers to the list of
> currently valid country codes.

Fine.

> If we want to nitpick ourselves to death on this issue

Not really.

> we can adopt relevant language from LTRU.

"Alpha-2 region codes of the BCP 47 subtag registry" (instead
of referencing "ISO.3166.1988") is an alternative to avoid any
conflicts forever, but for "Distribution" we want the _actual_
codes, not the old CS or DD or BU or other long dead codes.

> Or we can leave it alone.

What I really wanted to say:  LTRU managed to use the _actual_
3066 in the BCP 47 references:

| [ISO3166-1] International Organization for Standardization,
| "ISO 3166-1:1997. Codes for the representation of names of
| countries and their subdivisions -- Part 1: Country codes",
| 1997.

This "1997" is better than "1988" in USEFOR.  The used XML is:

~~~ cut ~~~
<reference anchor="ISO3166-1">
   <front>
   <title>ISO 3166-1:1997. Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions -- Part 1: Country codes</title>
   <author>
<organization abbrev="ISO">International Organization for Standardization</organization></author>
<date year="1997"/>
</front>
~~~ end ~~~

That should be ready for copy and paste into USEFOR-09.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 22:02:01 GMT

>irrelevant distribution codes ?  Or do we decide this later in

Is there an update of [ISO.3166.1988] that we should be referring to? Or
we could add "... or any extension of it".

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:42:27 +0200

Charles Lindsey wrote:
 
 [ISO.3166.1988].
> Is there an update of [ISO.3166.1988] that we should be 
> referring to?

Yes, see my later article in this thread.  The 1997 version
also isn't free, but it's the base of the current list, and
that's available online.  

Bye, Frank