Skip to main content

FFV1 Video Coding Format Versions 0, 1, and 3

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:


From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Cc: "Peter B." <>, Michael Richardson <>, The IESG <>,,,,,,
Subject: Document Action: 'FFV1 Video Coding Format Version 0, 1, and 3' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-20.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'FFV1 Video Coding Format Version 0, 1, and 3'
  (draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-20.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Codec Encoding for LossLess Archiving and
Realtime transmission Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Murray Kucherawy and Barry Leiba.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

This document describes FFV1, a lossless video encoding format. The design of
FFV1 considers the storage of image characteristics, data fixity, and the
optimized use of encoding time and storage requirements. FFV1 is designed to
support a wide range of lossless video applications such as long-term
audiovisual preservation, scientific imaging, screen recording, and other video
encoding scenarios that seek to avoid the generational loss of lossy video
encodings.  This document defines version 0, 1 and 3 of FFV1.

Working Group Summary

Since FFV1 (version 0,1,3) already exists and is in production use for many
years already, there was a clear consensus for these versions. Although the
number of people interested in, and working with this format is growing, the
document itself was written and reviewed by a rather small group.

There do not appear to be any concerns in terms of process or consensus.

Document Quality

This small group consists of a team of experts in audiovisual format
encodings, where most of them have actively been working with FFV1 since its
early days. The knowhow and expertise in this group is a good mix between AV,
codec implementation, real world lossless video use cases, as well as mathematics.

The team itself and the document shepherd finds the document to be of good
quality, but two successive responsible Area Directors raised numerous issues
about document quality and layout about earlier versions.  The authors
have been slow but steady in responding.


The document shepherd is Peter Bubestinger-Steindl.

Murray Kucherawy is the responsible Area Director, and provided an expert review
on the IANA media type registration.

RFC Editor Note