CELLAR -- Aug 26 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.

Tip: press “Expand all” in the navigation menu

👥 Participants (please add yourself as you join)

• Spencer Dawkins
• Robert Sparks
• Jérôme Martinez
• Steve Lhomme
• Dave Rice

Regrets:

📣 Note Well

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

👀 Previous meeting minutes

Are any corrections needed to the June interim minutes?

• No corrections reported

🔥 Hot Topics

From Steve's reply to Orie's AD Evaluation on draft-ietf-cellar-tags-18

We can probably limit the tag name and the tag values to the “non
problematic” values, so the ones described in "4.3. Unicode
Assignables”. But we should also do that for Unicode strings in EBML
and in Matroska. Limiting the values in the tags document would be
inconsistent with the Document that document defines these elements as
UTF-8 values, ie RFC9559. Given this is defining the “official values”
that should be used, we may impose extra rules compared to the raw/any
UTF-8 allowed by the format. It may also be part of a guideline.
However it cannot be a MUST because we don’t know what people have put
in these elements so far. If the UTF-8 is correct, then there’s no
reason to make it invalid because it’s considered problematic now.

Which leads me to the other point. I would be willing to use a
reference to the Unicode Assignables section as the basis for our
rules. But that document is not yet published. I may use their ABNF
but it may also be bogus or might be extended until it’s published. So
using this document as a reference would delay the publication of the
tags spec until that document eventually is published (if ever) ?

• So, what's the Right Thing To Do? Let's discuss, before we get more
  comments about this during IETF Last Call and IESG Evaluation.

  • We talked about this on our call, and we don't think it's good
    to add restrictions that might invalidate Matroska files that
    were valid previously.

🗣️ Working Group Documents

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

draft-ietf-cellar-tags

• Steve has resolved Orie's comments from AD Evaluation, to Orie's
  satisfaction.
• Steve will submit a -19 version when he is able to log in to the
  datatracker (Thank you, Robert, for your help!)

draft-ietf-cellar-codec

• Steve has submitted a -15 version, reflecting my comments (as
  document shepherd).

• We said that we would start WGLC when this document became available

  • are we ready to do that now?

  • Steve says this is ready for WGLC at -15, and Spencer started
    WGLC during today's meeting.

  • WGLC will run for three weeks (ending September 16), and we will
    review any comments received at our September 23 virtual
    meeting.
  • Comments may be entered via email on the working group mailing
    list, or in GitHub at
    https://github.com/ietf-wg-cellar/matroska-specification.
  • Our goal would be to request publication for this draft after
    our September 2025 virtual meeting.

draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-v4

• This draft has expired. Is any action required at this time?
  • The draft is waiting for implementation experience and feedback.
    We still expect to request publication in 2025.

🛸 Any Other Business

Additional Information

Planned future meeting dates

• 2025-09-23
• 2025-10-14
• 2025-12-09