Other List Domains [+]
- Separate list domains for faculties, departments and business units
-
Tommy Yu
Tommy Yu
CellML Discussion List
Text archives Help
[cellml-discussion] CellML MIME type registration: Informational Standard vs Standards Track (Proposed Standard etc...)
Chronological Thread
- From: d.nickerson at auckland.ac.nz (David Nickerson)
- Subject: [cellml-discussion] CellML MIME type registration: Informational Standard vs Standards Track (Proposed Standard etc...)
- Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 12:19:19 +1200
Declaring it as a Informative Standard seems like the way to go.
Andrew Miller wrote:
> 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 mailing list
> cellml-discussion at cellml.org
> http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
- [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.
