[Cellar] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-cellar-codec-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cellar-codec-19: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cellar-codec/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

** Sections 3.1.6 and 8.1

-- Section 3.1.6, “Citation, Documentation of the associated normative and
informative references for the codec is RECOMMENDED.”

-- Section 8.1, “To register a new Codec ID in this registry, one needs a Codec
ID
   string, … and an optional Reference to a document describing the Codec ID”.

How is interoperability ensured if the code point for a given Codec ID has no
associated reference for the implementer to use?  Should the registration
policy be “Specification Required”?

** For the responsible AD/WG Chairs – could the consensus to publish this
document please be checked (and as appropriate, documented).  What I found in
the record was:

26-August-2026 – Interim meeting,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2025-cellar-08-202508261900/,
one WG participant on the call who wasn’t the WG chair or a document author. 
No call for consensus on the call

26-August-2026 – WGLC Started on the Mailing List,
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/gDR-EVk6j-IABAJGceMLv7qX47Q/. 
There were no responses to this WGLC.

23-September-2026 – Interim meeting,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2025-cellar-09-202509231900/,
following the WGLC with the same situation as the 26-August meeting (one WG
participant who wasn’t the WG chair or a document author.  No documented
instance of trying to establish consensus)

14-October-2026 – WGLC closed, consensus called,
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/wyKO4yLu4ZuSidsmq2LF7wESYak/


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you to Mallory Knodel for the GENART review.

I support the DISCUSS positions of Éric Vyncke and Ketan Talaulikar.

** Section 3.  What is the expected behavior of an implementation when
encountering a CodecID that is not registered?

** Section 3.5.13.  The reference for VobSub files appears to be to

   [VobSub]   MultimediaWiki, "VOBSub", 21 March 2007,
              <https://wiki.multimedia.cx/index.php?title=VOBsub>.

However, that page provides an example, not a specification for the format. 
This wiki page references a SourceForge project,
https://sourceforge.net/projects/guliverkli/files/?  Is that the reference? 
Where in the code repository is the format?  Is there a better reference?

** Sections 4.1.1.1, 4.1.1.2, 4.1.2.2.  These sections appear to use a formal
notation.  Please cite the format.  Perhaps the reference should be to C99?

** Sections 5.  This entire section appears to be verbatim (cut-and-paste) from
https://www.matroska.org/technical/subtitles.html.  I don’t know the pedigree
of the text but consider if some kind of acknowledgement of citation is needed
in this document.

** Section 5.1.  I was unable to access this site (or even resolve the DNS
name):
              DVD Forum, "DVD-Books: Part 3 DVD-Video Book", November
              1995, <http://www.dvdforum.org/>.

** Section 5.3.  Editorial.  Consider revising the colloquial framing of the
text following “Now, how are they stored in Matroska?” to be more consistent
with the rest of the text.