Re: [MEDIACTRL] Mixer Control Package

Adnan Saleem <> Tue, 06 September 2011 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6CA21F8BEF for <>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yr15pZHoM7Gs for <>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E399C21F8B6B for <>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([fe80::79bb:611b:3499:8b0e]) by ([fe80::bc12:596a:2f05:70d5%22]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:02:10 -0700
From: Adnan Saleem <>
To: "''" <>, "''" <>
Thread-Topic: [MEDIACTRL] Mixer Control Package
Thread-Index: AQHMbLagn3gSEzu1xEiBdyvhWz6ftZVApMMQ
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 18:02:09 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
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 18:00:24 -0000

I agree, "informative" reference makes sense to me.


----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Burger []
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 10:01 AM
To: <>
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.