Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

Hi all,

Apparently, Standards Track documents are not allowed to have normative
references to documents which are not also IETF standards-track
documents of the same level, and so it seems that we either need to
include all information about the CellML Umbrella Format into the MIME
type registration (and so avoid any normative reference), or we need to
publish as an Informational Standard (which is then not a Standards
Track document).

If we did incorporate the CellML Umbrella Format document into the
draft, we would presumably have to change the way the CellML Umbrella
Format Registry works, as the CellML Umbrella Format currently makes a
normative reference to the registry (and perhaps even let IANA maintain
the registry). In that case we would need to re-introduce the provisions
for what can and cannot be registered (an earlier version of the draft
listed criteria for entry into the registry, so that each entry in the
registry would be an improvement to the goals of the CellML project, but
the consensus of the CellML team was that these should be dropped, and
we should instead use the ability of the CellML team to reject entries
in order to prevent inappropriate entries). However, it may then be the
case that references from here to non IETF standards-track documents
like the CellML Specifications, MathML, XML, and so on, will be blocked
by the IESG.

Therefore, I think we are better to declare it as an Informative
Standard, and hope that implementors do not ignore the standard because
of this.

Opinions?

Best regards,
Andrew Miller

---

• [cellml-discussion] CellML MIME type registration: Informational Standard vs Standards Track (Proposed Standard etc...), Andrew Miller, 06/13/2006
  • [cellml-discussion] CellML MIME type registration: Informational Standard vs Standards Track (Proposed Standard etc...), David Nickerson, 06/14/2006

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.