Re: [MEDIACTRL] Mixer Control Package

James Rafferty <> Tue, 06 September 2011 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B051B21F8D19 for <>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.367
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.367 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.232, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 96sboxEXkeym for <>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F80D21F8D13 for <>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([fe80::bd56:b76c:8d2c:437b]) by ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:30:58 -0400
From: James Rafferty <>
To: Eric Burger <>, "" <>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:29:56 -0400
Thread-Topic: [MEDIACTRL] Mixer Control Package
Thread-Index: AcxstpTvLx7NQOi1QtSBok8VuDVH1wADERMA
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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, 06 Sep 2011 18:29:16 -0000

I agree with the proposal to make it an informative reference.  


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Eric Burger
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 1:01 PM
Subject: [MEDIACTRL] Mixer Control Package

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.