Minutes interim-2018-cellar-01: Tue 20:00
minutes-interim-2018-cellar-01-201805292000-00

Meeting Minutes Codec Encoding for LossLess Archiving and Realtime transmission (cellar) WG
Title Minutes interim-2018-cellar-01: Tue 20:00
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2018-05-30

Meeting Minutes
minutes-interim-2018-cellar-01-201805292000

   CELLAR -- Agenda for Virtual Interim Meeting
May 29, 2018

INFO:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2018-cellar-01/materials/agenda-interim-2018-cellar-01-cellar-01

WEBEX:
        https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m7b0a6e8d394a8310c3d98a728b1918fe
        Meeting number (access code): 313 505 170
        Host key: 763872
        Meeting password: dq64cWsm

        JOIN BY PHONE
        1-877-668-4493 Call-in toll free number (US/Canada)
        1-650-479-3208 Call-in toll number (US/Canada)

(If you want to try your system in advance of the meeting time, please
email me unicast.  The latest webex supports webrtc)

People Present:
    1. Michael Richardson
    2. Moritz Bunkus
    3. Martin Below
    4. Dave Rice
    5. Jérôme Martinez
    6. Reto Kromer
    7. Tim Terriberry

Agenda:

1. Note Well.   https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well/
2. Logistics for Meeting.
   2a) Etherpad for notes
       https://etherpad.tools.ietf.org/p/notes-cellar-virtual01?useMonospaceFont=true

   2b) Roll call

       Dave Rice did makefiles and markdown.

    Jerome Martinez focused on ffv1 document (both version)

    Martin Below worked on Matroska, chaptering, and tags.

    Moritz Bunkus author of MKVToolNix, transposing from container to
    container, more than codec.

    Reto Kromer help on Matroska and review work.

3. Status of draft-ietf-cellar-ebml-04 document.
   - Is it ready?
   - Open Issue: #48        NEED Proposed Text
     add section for handling bad data
     https://github.com/Matroska-Org/ebml-specification/issues/48

   - Open Issue: #157       NEED Proposed Text.
     Define DoctypeVersion 0 as invalid/experimental
     https://github.com/Matroska-Org/ebml-specification/issues/157
     AGREE to do this?
     DR: if we had a version 0, then there would be no valid attributes, so
     we'd have to make exceptions.

           so just define it as invalid.

      Seems like consensus.

     DR: I can offer to add a pull request to say that DocType version MUST be
     1 of higher, currently only docType=1 is defined.

   - split the question of experimental element IDs from issue of
   DoctypeVersion.

   - General topic of Security Considerations section (which is now part of the
   draft)
     - Do we need to define a maximum nesting depth?
     - Should VINT be canonically the shortest representation possible?

   - Need to add IANA registry for EBML binary tag names
     What is the amenda formula?  (MCR will propose IANA considerations text
     to list)
     https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cellar/current/msg01269.html

4. Status of draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-02  (version 0,1,3) -- legacy format.
   - Is this two documents from one source really working for everyone?
             - should we just fork repo?
             - DR: I think the two documents work well, it was suggested by
             Niedermayer.
   - Can we publish this document without waiting for -v4?

       - RK: yes

   - Need to change this to Informational: Discussion.

    Action: Need Michael Niedermayer to merge document, Dave Rice to send pull
    request changing document status (this change is to change from std to info
    and to increment the version).

5. Status of draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-v4-00
   - This version is IETF Standards Track.
   - what documents depend upon this document?

       No documents depend on this.

       This document repeats text from draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1 (informational),
       so should be published afterwards, but has no direct normative reference
       to it

General question on normative references to web pages:
    Suggest asking rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org for suggestions on what to do
    about pages you're particularly worried about being changed. See also: RFC
    7322 Section 4.8.6.1

6. Status of draft-lhomme-cellar-codec-00

    MB: has some comments.

   WG adoption?

7. Status of draft-lhomme-cellar-matroska-04
   WG adoption, can it proceed without ffv1-v4?
   Yes, these only reference versions 0, 1, and 3 for now.

8. Status of draft-lhomme-cellar-tags-00
   WG adoption, can it proceed without ffv1-v4?
   Yes, these only reference versions 0, 1, and 3 for now.

Will send out calls to adopt these three documents as working group documents
to the list.

9. Importance of chapters/tags?
   May prefer to split into separate document because of complexity and
   timeline to resolve all issues