**Session Date/Time:** 14 Oct 2025 19:00

# [CELLAR](../wg/cellar.html)

## Summary

The CELLAR Working Group met to discuss the status of its drafts, particularly last call comments for `draft-ietf-cellar-tags` and the shepherd write-up for `draft-ietf-cellar-codec`. The WG also touched upon the `draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1` implementation comparison and future meeting scheduling. Key outcomes include the plan to incorporate review feedback into `draft-ietf-cellar-tags` and submit a new version, and confirmation of future meeting dates.

## Key Discussion Points

*   **`draft-ietf-cellar-tags` Last Call Comments:**
    *   **Gen Art Review (Inez):** Comments were primarily editorial, suggesting clarifications for unfamiliar readers. The sense of those present was that these were helpful but not requiring significant technical changes.
    *   **Security Directorate Review (Mohit):** Mohit suggested adding justification for why multiple items are not stored as a single list within the document, noting that this clarity would prevent potential issues during implementation. This was considered a valuable suggestion.
    *   **IANA Review:** A question regarding the placement of the registry was addressed and confirmed by working group participants.
    *   **ART Area Review:** The review, due the previous day, had not yet been received. It was noted that the Area Director would still consider it if it arrived later.
    *   **Next Steps for `draft-ietf-cellar-tags`:** The plan is to incorporate the feedback, particularly Mohit's suggestion, submit a new version, and then prompt the Area Director to consider it for an AD ballot.
    *   **Ballot Timeline:** It was acknowledged that a telechat review for `draft-ietf-cellar-tags` is unlikely before IETF 124, but the Area Director could initiate a ballot beforehand.

*   **`draft-ietf-cellar-codec` Shepherd Write-Up:**
    *   The WG Chair (Spencer) reported that the shepherd write-up for `draft-ietf-cellar-codec` was still in progress, specifically the verification of references. Completion of this write-up is the next step towards requesting publication.

*   **`draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1` Status:**
    *   No update was available regarding the comparison of the document against actual implementations, which was the previous action item before moving this draft forward. The relevant participants were noted to be traveling.

*   **Future Meeting Scheduling:**
    *   The WG discussed and confirmed proposed future meeting dates for 2026, taking into account IETF week collisions and holidays.

## Decisions and Action Items

**Decisions:**

*   The working group will proceed with addressing review comments for `draft-ietf-cellar-tags` and preparing a new version for Area Director consideration.
*   The planned meeting schedule for 2026 has been affirmed.

**Action Items:**

*   **Steve (Document Editor):** Incorporate review comments (specifically Mohit's suggestion to explain why multiple items are not stored as a single list) into `draft-ietf-cellar-tags`.
*   **Steve (Document Editor):** Submit a new version of `draft-ietf-cellar-tags` after incorporating feedback.
*   **Spencer (WG Chair):** Review the changes made to `draft-ietf-cellar-tags` and then nudge the responsible Area Director to move the document forward for an AD ballot.
*   **Spencer (WG Chair):** Complete the shepherd write-up for `draft-ietf-cellar-codec`, verifying all references.
*   **WG Chairs:** Follow up via email with Dave and Jerome regarding the status of comparing `draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1` to actual implementations.
*   **Spencer (WG Chair):** Request the confirmed 2026 future meeting dates for the CELLAR WG.

## Next Steps

*   The primary immediate next step is for Steve to revise `draft-ietf-cellar-tags` and for Spencer to finalize the shepherd write-up for `draft-ietf-cellar-codec`.
*   The WG chairs will continue to monitor for the ART Area Review for `draft-ietf-cellar-tags`.
*   Further progress on `draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1` is contingent on the update regarding implementation comparisons.