Re: [MEDIACTRL] Chaining the MRB function

Eric Burger <> Thu, 15 September 2011 14:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F0F521F8B28 for <>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 07:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.351
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.351 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CQpboZA39Nmw for <>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 07:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27C8521F8B26 for <>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 07:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default;; h=Received:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer:X-Source:X-Source-Args:X-Source-Dir; b=PAtp+Q5Tv/ur08uWrqGLe/WAd8lKn0mGr5frzBEjZajxt9Q0EHoTqf9dD+6p6R1l3izxCSlUUdpylkg37xF7NrR96zMqhMW9iV723XTpI5C0sCQUqeVNvoFkLvMHQqQi;
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <>) id 1R4CsI-0001wq-7k; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 07:25:10 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-46-634574640; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
From: Eric Burger <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:25:07 -0400
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [MEDIACTRL] Chaining the MRB function
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Media Control WG Discussion List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:23:04 -0000

I would offer it is permitted. Likewise, it is not un-permitted. Unless there is a compelling reason to talk about it, why talk about it?

On Sep 15, 2011, at 7:08 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:

> Given that the MRB can look to an application like a resource function, and and to a resource function like an application, it would appear to me that there is not reason why MRB functionality cannot be chained either logically, i.e. visit an MRB which supplies details of another MRB which is then queried for the particular resource, or physically, as in both MRBs operating in in-line mode.
> I can so far see no mention of this possibility in the mrb document.
> A potential use case might be were the resources are being provided by a different supplier to that which runs the application. The application provider runs an MRB to determine which resource supplier is best able to supply the resource. The resource provider runs an MRB to determine which resource best meets the needs.
> Is it permitted, and are there any implications people can think of that ought to be documented in using performing this in this fashion.
> Regards
> Keith
> _______________________________________________
> MEDIACTRL mailing list
> Supplemental Web Site: