CELLAR -- April 29 2025 1900 UTC

| Meetecho session | Previous meeting minutes |

Agenda / Notes

Please share video when possible. Remember that the session is being
recorded and will appear at YouTube.

👥 Participants (please add yourself as you join)

• Robert Sparks
• Spencer Dawkins
• Steve Lhomme
• Jérôme Martinez
• Dave Rice
• Michael Niedermayer
• David Araujo

Regrets:

📣 Note Well

https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well/
Please be KIND to each other.

👀 Previous meeting minutes

The previous meeting minutes need review and revision.

• Jerome has reviewed, no objections, so accepted

🗣️ Working Group Documents

See https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/cellar/documents/

draft-ietf-cellar-tags

Issues | PRs.

• -16 has been posted. Spencer has reviewed the changes requested from
  -15. Spencer is happy, and has initiated a two-week WGLC (so, WGLC
  would naturally conclude sometime around May 12, the Monday
  following "two weeks").

• Spencer is curious whether there is a good reason for us to extend
  WGLC by another week or two, to allow implementers who don't
  ordinarily participate in the working group to review this
  specification. (Nope!)

• Discussion on the call - we can request publication, and more people
  will have an opportunity to review and provide comments.

• ACTION: Spencer to notice WGLC comments and start on shepherd report
  for this document

draft-ietf-cellar-codec

Issues | PRs.

• Steve has created and merged a number of PRs based on my review,
  posted to the CELLAR mailing list here.

• Spencer has three (I think) open topics that would be good to
  discuss on today's call, visible here. The topics are

  • 3.3.27. V_VP9
    
  • 1. Subtitles
       
  • 1. Security Considerations

• ACTION: Steve and Spencer will converge on the proposed text from
  the email discussion for these three topics,

• ACTION: Spencer will initiate WGLC for the -15 revision

• Spencer is curious if there is any good reason for us to process
  -tags and -codecs in parallel (potential interactions when we get
  comments on on draft that would affect the other), or any good
  reason to process them serially (they aren't mutually dependent, are
  they?)

  • We don't need to wait on -codecs to request publication for
    -tags

draft-ietf-cellar-chapter-codecs

Issues | PRs

• As of today, we have this specification on hold, while we finish up
  -tags and -codecs. When we request publication on those two
  specifications, when should we plan to resume work on
  chapter-codecs?

• While we are expecting the DVD specifications to be deposited at the
  NDL, it's not likely that they will be made available online.
  "Public and freely available" is unlikely to happen. Can we make the
  reference informative? If not, is the content the reference is
  needed for something that can now be (re)-published somewhere else?

  • As best we can tell, someone has to show up in Japan and read
    the specification in person.
  • What's needed for reviewers to understand this part of the
    specification as Proposed Standard? Can we explain that
    ourselves, without stepping on DVD Forum IPR?
  • ACTION: Steve to reach out to people who can help us with this,
    and then report back to the working group

• What work, beyond resolving the reference question, remains for this
  document?

• We'll finish up -tags and -codecs, before we resume work on
  -chapter-codecs

draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-v4

• We don't have a spec_ffv1-v4 tag in the repo - should there be
  one?

  • There is a v4 label:
    https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFV1/issues?q=label%3Av4

🔥 Hot Topics

Registration of application/x-font-otf

There was a lot of "why would you want to do that" reflected when we
asked about this, and a bit of headscratching about what the processes
allow or don't. I'd like to get a better (preferably written) idea of
what we really want in the end, and why and I'll work with Orie to
make it happen. Details I still don't think I understand fully:

• are there other types to capture or is it just
  application/x-font-otf?
• is this intended to be registered as a deprecated form of font/otf
  or something else?

[name=RjS]

• There was pushback about asking IESG to tell IANA to add this
  registration.
• If it's important, we can do that with a small document.
• Are there any other registrations? No, this is the only one.
• ACTION: Robert will take the conversation back to Orie and the types
  reviewers.

🛸 Any Other Business

Additional Information

Planned future meeting dates

• 2025-05-27
• 2025-06-24
• 2025-08-26
• 2025-09-23
• 2025-10-14
• 2025-12-09