# CELLAR -- Mar 28 1800 UTC   {#cellar--mar-28-1800-utc}

[Meetecho session][1]

# Agenda / Notes   {#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)*   {#-participants-please-add-yourself-as-you-join}

*   Spencer Dawkins
*   Jérôme Martinez
*   Dave Rice
*   Steve Lhomme
*   Michael Niedermayer
*   Robert Sparks
*   Charles Eckel

Regrets:

*   

## 📣 Note Well   {#-note-well}

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

## 👀 Previous meeting minutes   {#-previous-meeting-minutes}

*   Are any corrections needed to [the previous meeting minutes][2]?
*   Jerome said "fine for me", so approved.

## Introducing Charles Eckel, our new Area Director   {#introducing-charles-eckel-our-new-area-director}

# 🗣️ Working Group Documents   {#️-working-group-documents}

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

## draft-ietf-cellar-tags   {#draft-ietf-cellar-tags}

*   draft-ietf-cellar-tags-24 has Charles's Yes vote, so is formally
    ready for approval.
*   Charles wanted to check with the new ADs, to see if anyone wanted to
    review it before sending it to the RFC Editor.
*   Charles is finishing up discussion with IANA and will bring a
    possible resolution to the mailing list.

## draft-ietf-cellar-codec   {#draft-ietf-cellar-codec}

*   Steve has submitted -18, which Charles is happy with.
*   Charles had a question about a downref [in the revised Shepherd
    writeup for -18][3]. Spencer clarified what Spencer was saying in
    the writeup. :smile:
*   Charles wants to take a look at IANA considerations before Last Call
*   This should be going for IETF Last Call very soon.

## Expired draft-ietf-cellar-chapter-codecs   {#expired-draft-ietf-cellar-chapter-codecs}

*   Any update?
*   We do have one set of reference specifications that we might not be
    able to provide for review
*   Can someone persuade the National Library of Japan to share this?
    Possibly the Library of Congress?

## draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-v4   {#draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-v4}

*   Any update?
*   We have a new proposal for RGGB/Bayer support in FFMPEG under
    discussion for this specification
    *   https://code.ffmpeg.org/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/pulls/22528
    *   https://lists.ffmpeg.org/archives/list/ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org/thread/KVWNFO5EFHAVJXUVZWA7Q3GA2YEZE4BA/

*   There is also several proposals from Michael forstoring raw LSB that
    needs to be reviewed
*   Floating point support is available in FFmpeg, but still need to
    update the spec
*   When would the group be reviewing text for this draft? We hope this
    year, but 4Q26 at the earliest

# 🔥 Hot Topics   {#-hot-topics}

## Recent Errata for our RFCs   {#recent-errata-for-our-rfcs}

### [Errata 8658][4]   {#errata-8658}

*   [Steve says][5] this errata isn't correct - it's the presence of the
    attribute that describes the recurring aspects, not the value of the
    attribute itself
*   Suggested Status (for our AD) is "Rejected"

### [Errata 8854][6]   {#errata-8854}

*   [Steve says][7] this errata isn't wrong, but objects to the
    suggestion of "unbounded" values in XML or EBML specifications.
*   The right way to say this, is by omitting the maxOccurs attribute,
    and the specification says that's equivalent to "unbounded".
*   Suggested Status (for our AD) is "Rejected"

### [Errata 8810][8]   {#errata-8810}

*   [Martijn says][9] this report is correct.
*   Suggested Status (for our AD) is "Verified"

## Starting on an Internet-Draft for Matroska v4 Additions   {#starting-on-an-internet-draft-for-matroska-v4-additions}

*   Steve has submitted [PR 1094][10], creating a new draft.
*   The suggested name is "Matroska Media Container v4 Additions".
*   Spencer's question - would we bundle additions into multiple
    documents, possibly published over time?
*   We are deciding whether to checkpoint the additions as of a date, or
    as "update 1" to produce a document for each addition
*   These really are new elements in Matroska
*   Spencer's question - this looks like our answer to the question
    about how we move Matroska forward, over time. Do I have that right?
    Spencer thinks so
*   Spencer's question - does Updates mean the base specification can be
    untouched?
*   If we want to have Update relationships between Matroska and
    Matroska additions, we need to add that to -codec and -tag
*   We can close on that in the next couple of weeks

## "Added" and/or "Revision" attributes for EBML   {#added-andor-revision-attributes-for-ebml}

*   Steve has submitted [PR 433][11], to allow implementations to
    distinguish between RFC 9559 elements and new elements in the EBML
    schema.

# Any Other Business?   {#any-other-business}

*   None noted

### Next meeting dates   {#next-meeting-dates}

| Meeting | Date |
|----------
| interim-2026-cellar-04 | 2026-05-26 |
| interim-2026-cellar-05 | 2026-06-23 |
| interim-2026-cellar-06 | 2026-08-25 |
| interim-2026-cellar-07 | 2026-09-22 |
| interim-2026-cellar-08 | 2026-10-27 |
| interim-2026-cellar-09 | 2026-12-08 |



[1]: https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/interim/?session=35095
[2]: https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-interim-2026-cellar-02-cellar
[3]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cellar-codec/shepherdwriteup/
[4]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8658
[5]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/9VCyXliJH0fiwxNaBLABP8kJHX8/
[6]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8854
[7]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/K6i0yD1i32C_O8JqIUNTp2ILR_k/
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8810
[9]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/3-kaBOAYq1fTlJ88AH7RMOFKWQc/
[10]: https://github.com/ietf-wg-cellar/matroska-specification/pull/1094
[11]: https://github.com/ietf-wg-cellar/ebml-specification/pull/433