CELLAR WG - IETF 99 - Prague, CZ - July 21, 2017
          Chairs: Tessa Fallon, Tim Terriberry
          Area Director: Ben Campbell
          Jabber Scribe: Jonathan Lennox
          Note Taker: Mo Zanaty
          
          
          Administrative Slides - Chairs
          Ben (as AD): Milestones should be based on real work, not the publication
          process.
          Tessa (as chair): We will update the milestones to later this year.
          
          
          FFV1 Video Codec - Jerome Martinez
          draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1
          Jerome: Next version of FFV1 codec will change things to fix some bugs.
          Ben (as AD): Next version of the draft or of the codec itself?
          Jerome: FFV1 v0/1/3 (codec not draft version) are deployed and frozen,
          no changes possible.
          Jerome: FFV1 v4 (codec not draft version) is in design and needs bug
          fixes, so will change.
          Tim: Should the Matroska binding be defined here in the FFV1 draft or
          the Matroska document?
          Jerome: Can be done in either doc.
          Steve Lhomme (remote): Separate doc planned with all codec mappings.
          Jonathan: Need one normative place to document the mapping, not multiple
          with possible conflicts.
          Jerome: Matroska spec should point to FFV1 spec for mapping.
          DECISION: FFV1-Matroska mapping will be defined in the FFV1 spec. Matroska
          spec will reference this.
          Jonathan: If you have a C-like description and English, which is
          normative?
          Jerome: C-like description is the normative spec, English is informative.
          Jonathan: What do you mean by optimization of the algorithm?
          Jerome: Optimize the normative bitstream itself, not just the encoder
          implementation.
          Tim (as chair): How many have read this draft? Only 1 hand raised in
          the room, and 1 in the jabber room.
          Ben (as AD): Ask for reviewers by name. WG last call may also get more
          reviews.
          
          
          Matroska Container Format - Steve Lhomme (remote)
          draft-lhomme-cellar-matroska
          draft-ietf-cellar-ebml
          Mo: WebM being documented separately from the full Matroska spec seems
          like a problem for change control and version alignment.
          Steve: WebM is a strict subset of Matroska, authoritatively documented
          by Google. They add more Matroska features to WebM over time.
          Jerome: We only document full Matroska, and add some informative info
          about the WebM subset, but Google can change that at any time so it is
          not normative or authoritative.
          Tim (as chair): Have we asked Google about documenting WebM formally
          in IETF?
          Steve: No.
          Tim (as chair): If the WebM subset changes faster than Matroska spec
          itself, can it be an IANA registry?
          Steve: We have a table that shows the WebM subset. (No discussion of
          whether this table can go into any registry.)
          Ben (as AD): Adding XEBML sounds like substantially increased scope,
          should ask if WG really wants to take this on. Standardizing another
          general purpose data encoding is tough in IETF, easier to standardize
          something for a specific purpose.
          Tim (as chair): Any volunteers for EBML review? Jerome volunteers.
          Tessa (as chair): We will ask for EBML reviewers on the list.
          Tim (as chair): How many of the 22 issues just need a decision made,
          versus need actual work?
          Steve: Mixed bag, some need just a simple decision, some need discussion.
          Tim (as chair): Is the WG ok with moving codec mappings and tags to
          separate specs?
          Jonathan: Codec registrations feels like RTP payload formats. Will IANA
          take over this?
          Steve: Not sure how IANA works. (Tim offered links.) Need to explore
          that as a possible direction.
          
          
          FLAC Free Lossless Audio Codec - Andrew Weaver (remote)
          draft-xiph-cellar-flac
          Tim (as chair): Do you need anything from the WG?
          Andrew: More communication with FLAC dev list. More authoritative home
          for github repo.
          Tim (as chair): I will check on WG github repos.
          Jonathan: No changes to FLAC bitstream, just documenting it, right?
          Andrew: Yes.
          
          
          Next steps in the IETF pipeline - Chairs
          Ben (as AD): Is it correct that FFV1 v0/1/3 and EBML are mostly done in
          authors view; Matroska and FLAC need more work.
          Tim, Tessa (as chairs): Correct. Also need more reviewers.
          Ben (as AD): If we take on XEBML, make it a separate milestone, so it
          does not block the EBML milestone.
          Steve: Agree with Ben.
          
          
          An Analysis of Two Video Digitization Standards and Their Development
          Environments - Jimi Jones
          (No comments)