ST377:2004 as Normative Reference (copied from Issue #6)

[jpviollet]

Thinking about normative references, I understand that we are writing this document to avoid having ST 377:2004 as a normative reference in the other D-Cinema standards. However, it feels for this specific document itself, we may need to have ST 377:2004 listed in normative references as we do refer to it - otherwise, maybe some could argue that references are not really authoritative, and ST 377-1:2019 is actually the only MXF version normatively referenced by this document.

Thinking further, it feels we should even add a statement like the following one: "In case of conflict between this document and SMPTE ST 377:2004, SMPTE ST 377:2004 shall be authoritative."

Does this make sense?

Originally posted by @jpviollet in https://github.com/SMPTE/st429-20/issues/6#issuecomment-856399972

[jpviollet]

Pierre replied (in issue #6): https://github.com/SMPTE/st429-20/issues/6#issuecomment-857364994

This reply is copied below for convenience: _"A key objective of the project is to remove the need to reference ST 377:2004.

I think the intent of the document is clear, per the discuss at #5, so that the document can be readily updated as divergences, if any, are found."_

[jpviollet]

I replied (in issue #6): https://github.com/SMPTE/st429-20/issues/6#issuecomment-857941017

My reply is copied below for convenience: "Most ST377:2004 references are most likely just fine without ST377:2004 listed as normative reference. However, what about references like in section 5.12:

"The default values for the Track Name item specified in SMPTE ST 377:2004 apply, including, but not limited to:"

This should be understood as a "requirement", over-writing how ST377-1:2019 is written, and we are not even providing the full list of tracks - it says "including, but not limited to:""

[jpviollet]

Pierre replied (in issue 6):

However, what about references like in section 5.12: [...] This should be understood as a "requirement",

It sounds like list of divergences in Section 5.12 should be exhaustive.

P.S.: This should be open as a separate issue.

[jpviollet]

Now following up in this new Issue #18:

Ideally, having section 5.12 become exhaustive would indeed be ok. However, by doing this we introduce a second source of truth (first one being ST377:2004), and as we are all humans, it is possible that we introduce a difference which is usually clarified (like in ST429-7: prose vs schema) through a statement like:

"In case of conflict between this document and SMPTE ST 377:2004, SMPTE ST 377:2004 shall be authoritative."

It would be nice if we could have a statement like this. Would there be a way?

[palemieux]

Ideally, having section 5.12 become exhaustive would indeed be ok.

Ok with me.

[palemieux]

Revised draft at https://smpte.sharepoint.com/sites/21DC-DocumentMaintenance/_layouts/15/DocIdRedir.aspx?ID=21DC-2062321792-57433

[jpviollet]

I see two other tracks (Event/Static track DM) with default track names in ST377:2004, and even if they are most likely never used in D-Cinema, it feels difficult to know for sure that no implementation are using them - at least Static tracks seem allowed in ST429-3, section 7. As they are only 2, should we add them to the list to be safe? I see:

Event track (DM) "Descriptive Metadata" Static track (DM) "Descriptive Metadata"

[palemieux]

Fixed at https://smpte.sharepoint.com/:w:/s/21DC-DocumentMaintenance/EQQ7z9QmkB5FpI-6DUq2M40Bel9AGD3ipTzGVA9lrE3LvQ?e=MSvyh8

[jpviollet]

As an objective of this work is to avoid normative reference to ST377:2004, this revision resolves my comment, thank you.