Subject: [Cellar] Call for adoption of three new WG items

From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 18:14:05 -0700

Some people had to drop off the virtual interim call before we got 
through all of the agenda items, so we did not ask for adoption of the 
three Matroska drafts as working group items, but we would like to do so 
now on the list*.

We request that people indicate support or objection to the adoption of 
the following three drafts as working group drafts:
draft-lhomme-cellar-matroska-04
draft-lhomme-cellar-codec-00
draft-lhomme-cellar-tags-00

As a general reminder, adopting a draft as a working group item does not 
mean that the group thinks the draft is ready to publish or even 
necessarily complete, but that it represents a solid enough foundation 
for the group to focus their work around it. Note also that once 
adopted, the editors are responsible for making sure the draft reflects 
working group consensus, even if it differs from their own personal 
opinions.

This will be a two-week call for consensus, ending June 13th.

* As per usual, if we had called for consensus during the call, we would 
still have confirmed it on the list.

---

From: Moritz Bunkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 08:12:25 +0200

Hey,

> draft-lhomme-cellar-tags-00

I'm in favor.

Kind regards,
mosu

---

From: Reto Kromer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 10:36:34 +0200

Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:

>We request that people indicate support or objection to the
>adoption of the following three drafts as working group drafts:

I am in favour.

Best regards, Reto

---

From: Jerome Martinez <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 10:47:21 +0200

On 31/05/2018 03:14, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:
> We request that people indicate support or objection to the adoption 
> of the following three drafts as working group drafts:

I am in favour.

Jérôme

---

From: Steve Lhomme <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 11:21:46 +0200

>> draft-lhomme-cellar-tags-00

I am in favor for all three.

>
> I am in favour.
>
> Jérôme
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cellar mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cellar

-- 
Steve Lhomme
Matroska association Chairman

---

From: hubblec4 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 12:53:54 +0200

Hey all

First, again thanks for this wonderful Meeting.

>> draft-lhomme-cellar-tags-00

We spoke shortly about the Chapters at the end of the meeting.
I see a section for the Tags but not for Chapters. Chapters are more 
complex then Tags.
Is the Chapters topic inside the draft-lohmme-cellar-matroska-04?

Mosu, I know to describe fully Matroska-Linking there is no time, but we 
have ordered editions(ordered chapters) which also not really good 
defined for now.

Best regards
Martin

---

From: Dave Rice <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 09:07:30 -0400

> On May 31, 2018, at 5:21 AM, Steve Lhomme <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

+3

Dave

---

From: Dave Rice <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 09:12:05 -0400

Hi Martin,

> On May 31, 2018, at 6:53 AM, hubblec4 <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hey all
> 
> I see a section for the Tags but not for Chapters. Chapters are more complex then Tags.

The original discussions about splitting the Matroska document into sections was considering that:
- the Matroska document at the time was massive, well over 200 pages.
- the tags and codec specs sections may need more frequent adjustments as new codecs and tags are needed, whereas the rest of the matroska specification should be relatively stable

Moving the tags section to a separate document wasn’t because of its complexity but because it would likely need more frequent revision as new metadata values are added. So the chapters descriptions are still in draft-lhomme-cellar-matroska-04, see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lhomme-cellar-matroska-04#section-10.

> Mosu, I know to describe fully Matroska-Linking there is no time, but we have ordered editions(ordered chapters) which also not really good defined for now.
> 
> Best regards
> Martin
>

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 15:16:12 -0400

Dave Rice <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > - the tags and codec specs sections may need more frequent adjustments
    > as new codecs and tags are needed, whereas the rest of the matroska
    > specification should be relatively stable

Assuming that the IANA Considerations requires an IETF Standards Action to
allocate, then new tags and new codecs can be added with a specification that
simply updates this document: we don't have to repeat the entire process.

If bigcompany.example publishes some super-magic codec, available only by
using their CPU, and want a codec code for it, and the IANA Considerations
includes an "Expert Review" or "First Come First Served" section, then they
simply ask for it, no specification required even.
If the ITU publishes some codec, and wants a code, and it's "Specification
Required" (vs IETF Standards Action), then the existence of their document
is enough to get a code.

    > Moving the tags section to a separate document wasn’t because of its
    > complexity but because it would likely need more frequent revision as
    > new metadata values are added. So the chapters descriptions are still
    > in draft-lhomme-cellar-matroska-04, see
    > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lhomme-cellar-matroska-04#section-10.

Will the new tags materially affect processing of the old tags?

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

---

From: hubblec4 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 22:12:49 +0200

Hi Michael

> Will the new tags materially affect processing of the old tags?
I say no. It is also possible to use own private (undefinded) Tags, for 
example Mosu's Statistics Tags without break processing old Tags.
All Tags work independently.

Also new Tags elements must be safe for the old Tags elements.

Best regards
Martin

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 21:13:00 -0400

> All Tags work independently.

So, new functionality can be in new documents and does not require revising
documents.

    > Also new Tags elements must be safe for the old Tags elements.

If there were new behaviours necessary for old tags, then we would have to
change the file version number, I think.