Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

Chris Lonvick wrote:
> ...
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your review, please see my responses below...
> It appears that CellML Umbrella is at version 1.1 but this document
> specifies version 1.0. From my meager research, I don't think that's
> going to be a problem with this registration but would you reassure me?
The CellML Umbrella 1.0 specification is a single format to which CellML
1.1 and CellML 1.0 (as well as any future specifications) adhere. This
means that one media type can be used for all versions of CellML, and
allows limited forward compatibility for certain types of processing
software, such as RDF processors.
>
> Also, does this need to be submitted as a Standards Track RFC? Most
> of the other media type registrations were done through Informational
> RFCs.
Although the original intent was for this to be a standards track
document, the Last Call was for this to be an Informational document
(due mainly to the desire to have a normative reference to the CellML
Umbrella Specification, which is a non-IETF standard). The next draft
removes the "Standards Track" text from the page headers/footers.
>
> Some editorial nits:
> - Don't duplicate the abstract in the Introduction.
Okay, I have fixed that now.
> - Section 3, "Discussion", would be better incorporated as part of the
> Introduction.
I have moved Discussion into Introduction, and re-numbered.
> - If it becomes an Informational document, then you can remove the
> Notational Conventions. If it stays a Standards Track document, then
> you should review it and make changes where appropriate. Such as:
> s/recommended/RECOMMENDED
I don't see the harm of keeping the reference to BCP14 for an
informational document, as it avoid doubt about the interpretation of
words. I have changed that to RECOMMENDED, and I also replaced a 'may'
which wasn't supposed to be MAY with 'can'.

I have also added text to clarify that CellML Umbrella documents are
always UTF-8 (this is already in the specification, but Lisa Dusseault
recommended repeating it in the draft), and I clarified an ambiguous use
of the word registry.

I will be submitting these changes in
draft-miller-media-type-cellml-04.txt shortly.
>
> I believe that you have covered all of the bases in your Security
> Considerations section.
>
Best regards,
Andrew Miller

---

• [cellml-discussion] SECDIR review of draft-miller-media-type-cellml-03.txt (fwd), Andrew Miller, 06/30/2006

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.