From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [50.223.129.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63001FBF2 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2024 04:36:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=50.223.129.194 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706934975; cv=none; b=oaiE0xM7sd/si+CjZUTUOhhtIK7lCF4tkqOLVPmpEpiDSyPAQV2oiuNRqqxe+e2+CqAjC9qDZ/Kcf5paVwRIucCNpZ20oriXuQgL6ov/hL0q2EVeQuviC5gmf7VaZsA94avtM9jHjPgEbc4JBx4rSQKcWSjGPjtMosYk8b8Bwh4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706934975; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FrqoOgCOlVXjTD059kXKsdNq2QN5LidMI5czUcUOsfE=; h=To:Cc:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Subject:Content-Type:From; b=JUu7g8nFE63K/2b97Gt+45ROhgugjUyQil9H80+og5XuhMz7i0OPxniwd3AZUC3YdHTkyINZBgt9LMjSa5ppsA1O4uXDLmE/VYyLqJrxYbqrzpyHQbD0t+HS/6cb4cZ+71JdJCSLDn3INUTTL2I3Xa3o1zq7lJnBLdWk+PU3DCU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=dmarc.ietf.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ietf.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ietf.org header.i=@ietf.org header.b=I7VxGQzr; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) header.d=ietf.org header.i=@ietf.org header.b=QCc1XVvl reason="signature verification failed"; dkim=fail (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.com header.i=@googlemail.com header.b=iZR1vKqI reason="signature verification failed"; arc=none smtp.client-ip=50.223.129.194 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=dmarc.ietf.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ietf.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ietf.org header.i=@ietf.org header.b="I7VxGQzr"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=ietf.org header.i=@ietf.org header.b="QCc1XVvl"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.com header.i=@googlemail.com header.b="iZR1vKqI" Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7654DC14F70D for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 20:36:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1706934972; bh=FrqoOgCOlVXjTD059kXKsdNq2QN5LidMI5czUcUOsfE=; h=To:Cc:Date:Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive: List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From; b=I7VxGQzrujm2JseWU/PHPQd9+YeRDvni3IJ8Y0GYxcg31pmCxgv5Ww/KHQzyb4CXk C0acRy0dvCctpXHUU8WQQJ+WFGD7VxeDsgyUupOZun/K7iXeQu4EbDBcqfBWNFRYzD 94gG/Lpp+dxJwDeWbdQ3DHSgUCp4PON+//iKD4gk= Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48E40C14F68C; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 20:36:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1706934972; bh=h0hMoQUgEZWC5oZyAQiL6NdVoL42DSmcRwr5rEzQztk=; h=From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive: List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=QCc1XVvl9WOrRp/O66c1HqGMrAo5IDuuEEIxLbFzt84akBHk5krRrkynR/4t+brF3 ikIIcget+++9u64wjI0zLfwUEOIYgP3I9cDD9uE0cg7mPhvk9r/CfrOIlbG5O20Kg/ tXlL8PPwTy6QFvzZqYWP8LeafZdm1jWpGnAt/5HY= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B8BEC14F619 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 20:36:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.854 X-Spam-Level: Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gQKNESXT6XjO for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 20:36:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pl1-x631.google.com (mail-pl1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::631]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51E64C14F68C for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 20:36:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl1-x631.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1d93edfa76dso23691085ad.1 for ; Fri, 02 Feb 2024 20:36:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20230601; t=1706934966; x=1707539766; darn=ietf.org; h=content-language:thread-index:mime-version:message-id:date:subject :cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=npm7Z4Lq33QJTE+Z98CpkT6DjsCbzkGdtf8MGrm3X4M=; b=iZR1vKqIP5dTkVxit7lmu2liOXp4smxrukivu8seOJGyaVlUfoM8zv3bfA4dbVM+CM bbNMgDXb3XSeIw1h1hWTKkKo/8xliSyVyqrJ7SffRh2MRb+Gt/TrqDdWprSvfIjxBvnn tEcbFHI/HqIYNXNaezOikMhhV0X7AphTvi7NMav+AHeJw4u7aPwUB9H7JenXQwMp0r2E QzB8CMrFmRM7a2b8HL1p1DHqg413Rp/s3TU9vVEsMMbiSNFNQ0jRz9dhjvZVDnYSDwaV FrgAHe+4+W7zPYsI1DMXVp+E4tBRjjQSaLHDFu2qiw9lM6n/NQNHhLbVN0Eqf0fEvKlc 52EQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1706934966; x=1707539766; h=content-language:thread-index:mime-version:message-id:date:subject :cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=npm7Z4Lq33QJTE+Z98CpkT6DjsCbzkGdtf8MGrm3X4M=; b=NjRREAbcpl/yIAVbbt2sKkWfswooJASrzr9vslYgN2Mg+wRIZpNh/Ll2KMAm9roSxG oiVUUWDle9GnuPSY2WvmkJnjQ/+7phNm7QKAtpvZopSOHb7IuP2NE3dvrLjyxzMFI1qW +LhvtfJEgTNUsiUW4ophC15co2K4EOVGZ4QW4ZPG2CNiGUKOGINgDiBQpcLOQUJ3qMti tyNKk6c8w8DQ6uLR1YKTd0kdjoefXqpktVyaqprq1Vb6GpOB/TJLMyKwqlqA5lvlw+a+ IkwAR1Bbce8xbdbhx2prTzS2vbp8OMypSck0m4OC5X1bYUuEGg2HL4mIvbbXE0pwru9i J7Vw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxQGJJW90Tfz4/SnDl2JTR/huiPhbaULag+fGaDz2nuQx+Coe2j 4kZNM89ClHclOfqwBLWSrdRIseLwbCWIxGIPzB31J27Jzw4ljYSxPjMOsyOnlTg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHXpz/UwtTwC8pOKtcqXduqG53eQ13+GZqu2o+YitcVAE+v7LTAOq4hX846lTmJnkXfQnExWQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:f7cf:b0:1d9:62bc:a55d with SMTP id h15-20020a170902f7cf00b001d962bca55dmr4604175plw.25.1706934966159; Fri, 02 Feb 2024 20:36:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from ArmidaleLaptop (c-67-170-74-237.hsd1.wa.comcast.net. [67.170.74.237]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ks14-20020a170903084e00b001d963d963aasm2390094plb.308.2024.02.02.20.36.05 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Feb 2024 20:36:05 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Original-From: To: Cc: Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 20:36:02 -0800 Message-ID: <00f801da565a$7e999250$7bccb6f0$@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AdpWWeO4ijzebLSvS6KOsKOfv93Zpw== Content-Language: en-us Archived-At: Subject: [Bpf] ISA: do individual instructions still need their own IANA status? X-BeenThere: bpf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6191048414342598716==" Errors-To: bpf-bounces@ietf.org Sender: "Bpf" X-Original-From: dthaler1968@googlemail.com From: dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org This is a multipart message in MIME format. --===============6191048414342598716== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00F9_01DA5617.7076A070" Content-Language: en-us This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00F9_01DA5617.7076A070 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Previously (draft -00) we said that each instruction would have a status of Permanent, Provisional, or Historical in the IANA registry. However, we now have conformance groups about to be merged into the ISA doc, and at IETF 118 we discussed having each conformance group have a status of Permanent, Provisional, or Historical. That is, it makes sense for the status to be at the granularity of conformance group since one should implement all instructions in a conformance group together. As a result I now believe that each individual instruction no longer needs its own status since it can be derived from the status of the conformance group(s) it belongs to. So in the IANA Considerations section, I plan to remove "status" from the list of fields in the instruction sub-registry and ONLY have "status" in the list of fields for the conformance group sub-registry). Let me know if anyone has a good reason to keep it per-instruction. Dave ------=_NextPart_000_00F9_01DA5617.7076A070 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Previously (draft -00) we said = that each instruction would have a status of

Permanent, Provisional, or Historical in the IANA = registry.

 

However, we now have conformance groups about to be = merged into the ISA doc,

and at IETF = 118 we discussed having each conformance group have a status = of

Permanent, Provisional, or = Historical.  That is, it makes sense for the status to
be at the = granularity of conformance group since one should implement = all

instructions in a conformance = group together.

 

As a result = I now believe that each individual instruction no longer needs its = own

status since it can be derived = from the status of the conformance group(s) it

belongs to.  So in the IANA Considerations = section, I plan to remove “status”

from the list of fields in the instruction = sub-registry and ONLY have “status”

in the list of fields for the conformance group = sub-registry).

 

Let me know = if anyone has a good reason to keep it per-instruction.

 

Dave

------=_NextPart_000_00F9_01DA5617.7076A070-- --===============6191048414342598716== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline -- Bpf mailing list Bpf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bpf --===============6191048414342598716==--