Re: [MEDIACTRL] Mixer Control Package

Chris Boulton <> Tue, 20 September 2011 11:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0600021F8C6A for <>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.133
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.133 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.465, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xs3q9QD4IL+V for <>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17DAC21F8C63 for <>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (port=3701 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <>) id 1R5yG0-003TUO-Bf for; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:12:56 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:12:31 +0100
From: Chris Boulton <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030601000107000407050108"
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 -
Subject: Re: [MEDIACTRL] Mixer Control Package
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: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:10:33 -0000

On 06/09/2011 18:01, Eric Burger wrote:
> The Mixer Control Package, the second to last normative document the work group needs to publish, has been on hold for nine months waiting for the XCON common data model.  That document has been stuck in the XCON work group for over three months.
> Do we need this to be a normative reference?  We refer to the document in two places.  The first is in, where we enumerate the entire list of video layouts. By the way, that reference is a MAY, not a MUST or even a SHOULD.  The second is in 4.4.1, where we say we take the<codec>  element from the data model, but then we go ahead and define the element, anyway.
> I would offer that reading, understanding, and conforming to the data model is a nice thing.  However, it is not mandatory for creating an interoperable mediactrl implementation.  Therefore, I would propose we ask the RFC Editor move this reference from the Normative References to the Informative References, at which point this document will publish.
> Thoughts?
[Chris] I have no objection if this is the Chair's advice.


Chris Boulton
CTO & Co-founder
NS-Technologies <>
m: +44.7876.476681