From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-oi1-f173.google.com (mail-oi1-f173.google.com [209.85.167.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7C2D2D043 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 15:23:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.167.173 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707146583; cv=none; b=ZKbZGvbCXq53g2nVL2d9tEnKJlLdgV3ARMH2hxVZ9c2mbSfS02yb9MlowZmsKzUYF0TDT1lCGBMh8m0IWkUGhg5N0Lhu2LPyOvhgx1A8uwVXCVKi31ika0qUzydHWM5QkhgJbr/t0HhUIFR5qChrNsQfia4OTmqRGZgKz+VAnqA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707146583; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KrCXP5k0f0YJXwHtMBxQAcZQ7Iimi0LgJG0vCFq8+GI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=fWx1o6rQ1VqqWnKA2HMdvgO4X8RtgszFvPIgYp4BYAPRLWfZlL7PbZ8om3ubV+sOxjBOZjj0jmdaptcO/Uz8WPj/yUAdC3263hwgmRS9lL1wMEOpR8IJl3NPrsHpf+Zsb7eji0SZ2WAKcqYBH5sgzqaoYfj5g3banQuOax+IzkE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=manifault.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.167.173 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=manifault.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-oi1-f173.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-3bfdb84c0ebso572061b6e.1 for ; Mon, 05 Feb 2024 07:23:01 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1707146581; x=1707751381; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=c3+dls/bzKewWIrGbJpibIVsaZdK1iKYO/C+lKISuzs=; b=VpHVDj8jirdws5jinPKIAeqjZtryRlzCYB85UPwnhxSic3BSTI8aZZbmkJj57AXDLX U+bl4ml0+9B/LIcij/rTNRVOdnv4RcqvkFIfxYx58xgquM4evELtqXI1EJ0upHb3Y79G Wqh+KRVpk57I3/V3xc2P/vzcy/QTo0D30WETU0eunwrbkFhzIDRCom/f6zz9gARvF1uD mgfdxNdQJV5rs3aXaDFGnZGNt98P+K3DLBmnSRRb89+y6JdMv7s9ezcctmaQm1wDRQGk mIZ/zP6KTfo5L7Udps5jnfKHW0gEcyL6qIiqudPowhD2YM6X3rxcfhl/bttwBNkPjdis IUUg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzrRgT2cITUvvMTPdY+9XfqEnlWklCoc/To8E1MtEDzN3Hs1aJn u95LE/CmvxcxH+qzwZk7HT37ztKUKwWEKKpW+awLv+38lQMTu08k X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEKGBtEj8MreTL4qOJQyUHRGIerDOT7LnpJGW+IyUyWbPvQnl6vDKAwru+1glUcet/kMCTWHg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6359:4598:b0:176:9bfd:d092 with SMTP id no24-20020a056359459800b001769bfdd092mr120077rwb.18.1707146580707; Mon, 05 Feb 2024 07:23:00 -0800 (PST) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=0; AJvYcCWbfTYQo13makG7kMuHNSbLOjmTH/dSot1/y9LGiv7gyeRzzU9EH+9Lp9kXZxV/43osNeRii9pD+FNq9Mx+Yk6v71TF Received: from maniforge (c-24-1-27-177.hsd1.il.comcast.net. [24.1.27.177]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w9-20020ae9e509000000b007856ed8ff83sm28853qkf.45.2024.02.05.07.22.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 05 Feb 2024 07:23:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 09:22:57 -0600 From: David Vernet To: dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org Cc: bpf@ietf.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Bpf] ISA: do individual instructions still need their own IANA status? Message-ID: <20240205152257.GG120243@maniforge> References: <00f801da565a$7e999250$7bccb6f0$@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="m+H6bO6gQwMkhEk8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <00f801da565a$7e999250$7bccb6f0$@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.12 (2023-09-09) --m+H6bO6gQwMkhEk8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 08:36:02PM -0800, dthaler1968=3D40googlemail.com@dm= arc.ietf.org wrote: > 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). >=20 > Let me know if anyone has a good reason to keep it per-instruction. No objection from me. AFAICT this matches what RISC-V does, which again seems reasonable to emulate. Thanks, David --m+H6bO6gQwMkhEk8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYKAB0WIQRBxU1So5MTLwphjdFZ5LhpZcTzZAUCZcD9UQAKCRBZ5LhpZcTz ZPrzAPwMBv0Cb9WrqIecLSKWg9mhx4jH7gApoA69JoxovlKxxgD+PqrTleFtAu7T oKv71pm6aEF2cOG6NjY20GpoI5R8vgU= =H6gV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --m+H6bO6gQwMkhEk8-- 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 7536D3A1A6 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 15:23:12 +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=1707146594; cv=none; b=JQoDFDP34KEMYdLV6DLeJEXWz+L8qOoIVCAW0ZVXJPDibair+94cr8uq5tM89xuuqeSYkSPIXXWLfXhflbxTQk5LeYDDO6FT8wBSSiFKI8WVPpT39sdsCwB1AmFBJ/hCs5jZvkCUzMQsAHppWEUqH6cQ6GfC3m/YopamLrVoIpc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707146594; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5Mr/C/0onvMRCoRMTA0mQqCkiqLCOgVCKVptJS3UEXo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To: Subject:Content-Type; b=iBWX6HOxcVOPJaTxtDxraN0Be1ceYZwibZLvpO46H6V2WsH2/pnRA9TRjviOZoJctqsUGFruKiHtkUzmX6db6sBuin7c2iLIgufPfoT81oIFDOgnNxXcGU+M6hUDr1gsxNMRzUd+rXMjjXqtiJPGJ7dcHTh4+zGD9Oe6arydZ0M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=manifault.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ietf.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ietf.org header.i=@ietf.org header.b=JiGWQyuB; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ietf.org header.i=@ietf.org header.b=ZENORk08; arc=none smtp.client-ip=50.223.129.194 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=manifault.com 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="JiGWQyuB"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ietf.org header.i=@ietf.org header.b="ZENORk08" Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FA26C18DB8E for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 07:23:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1707146586; bh=5Mr/C/0onvMRCoRMTA0mQqCkiqLCOgVCKVptJS3UEXo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=JiGWQyuBZqjGS7UguYUwW1nD9In/lEg6NZF5h6GacQYa+GMvY7GBkIsCwXWRlCT5B ISnCZi8j98voKhpfTTjFPfGDcDXbtgsDKSqB0AdM9EW90QuU85V7Wgl011oWh9EhTc BDmEIfp99ttEyG5oKah/EsFcPifId/GTl7UV9FDg= X-Mailbox-Line: From bpf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 5 07:23:05 2024 Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A51FAC1519AA; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 07:23:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1707146585; bh=5Mr/C/0onvMRCoRMTA0mQqCkiqLCOgVCKVptJS3UEXo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=ZENORk08wef2cILkL0dtYgsVLOmmkBTe00WintPuvt7uE6NY3QjqsZBITayQhHSFP T05UzagoOrcwwp9J7WQguCZoux+4YG+03QvuKoFhA4NiXZq1JXcH/NKl8nBMxT7BCT RtVUqklkIE15/ir2pt92tMwuTW8j0E7x1UviMpT4= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C18D3C15155C for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 07:23:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.41 X-Spam-Level: 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 kcCOacSUpV9k for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 07:23:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-oi1-f181.google.com (mail-oi1-f181.google.com [209.85.167.181]) (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 A1036C165518 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 07:23:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi1-f181.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-3be61772d9aso2260694b6e.3 for ; Mon, 05 Feb 2024 07:23:01 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1707146581; x=1707751381; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=c3+dls/bzKewWIrGbJpibIVsaZdK1iKYO/C+lKISuzs=; b=mDsGw+BCQ+x4fhKc96hlrSbX5bWr7979H7SbJB45BWxnXvdFHmW/OdruUawnGyuTYi vao8PLnwyPlcJICNaLcxEPK3TWddyaHeSq5qwzyYhpxZBJe/OdUcT+FL5/thO6AnPY0G AwqXgv+BzmBqJ6LDMTmh70doj6dvOSdTsU4J5US3sD2tDsEw0wzWmVVAY3haW0FJu3BU ss/epaJpHsfUCXvGpGH0E7JJypfQ33y0Czi859LAYTuV1ycYZUjaN9nzwxHVE1S2mNAo O4BeZm+g0tnjo1vXwNrbAtDx4TQlPpRIZDnFpjv5gU8veiCc6KcNdPM/VBKjPZBAe1mO 1THw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzTMnmTsrYOHuvp+eAygYYH8xY7v7THlW64uKacVjre61brSQYh y6lJUXWa7KI6DcI+b9AZ8DSTkr+xm3S1aMuKv/tn8vD4f5XB1KreGkRlz6IDXN6iQQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEKGBtEj8MreTL4qOJQyUHRGIerDOT7LnpJGW+IyUyWbPvQnl6vDKAwru+1glUcet/kMCTWHg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6359:4598:b0:176:9bfd:d092 with SMTP id no24-20020a056359459800b001769bfdd092mr120077rwb.18.1707146580707; Mon, 05 Feb 2024 07:23:00 -0800 (PST) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=0; AJvYcCWbfTYQo13makG7kMuHNSbLOjmTH/dSot1/y9LGiv7gyeRzzU9EH+9Lp9kXZxV/43osNeRii9pD+FNq9Mx+Yk6v71TF Received: from maniforge (c-24-1-27-177.hsd1.il.comcast.net. [24.1.27.177]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w9-20020ae9e509000000b007856ed8ff83sm28853qkf.45.2024.02.05.07.22.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 05 Feb 2024 07:23:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 09:22:57 -0600 From: David Vernet To: dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org Cc: bpf@ietf.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20240205152257.GG120243@maniforge> References: <00f801da565a$7e999250$7bccb6f0$@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <00f801da565a$7e999250$7bccb6f0$@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.12 (2023-09-09) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [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="===============7732348929276628755==" Errors-To: bpf-bounces@ietf.org Sender: "Bpf" Message-ID: <20240205152257.hZFmjgmrp-yAOZvklHYZkvmv2l46u06zhUWp91dNwpo@z> --===============7732348929276628755== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="m+H6bO6gQwMkhEk8" Content-Disposition: inline --m+H6bO6gQwMkhEk8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 08:36:02PM -0800, dthaler1968=3D40googlemail.com@dm= arc.ietf.org wrote: > 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). >=20 > Let me know if anyone has a good reason to keep it per-instruction. No objection from me. AFAICT this matches what RISC-V does, which again seems reasonable to emulate. Thanks, David --m+H6bO6gQwMkhEk8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYKAB0WIQRBxU1So5MTLwphjdFZ5LhpZcTzZAUCZcD9UQAKCRBZ5LhpZcTz ZPrzAPwMBv0Cb9WrqIecLSKWg9mhx4jH7gApoA69JoxovlKxxgD+PqrTleFtAu7T oKv71pm6aEF2cOG6NjY20GpoI5R8vgU= =H6gV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --m+H6bO6gQwMkhEk8-- --===============7732348929276628755== 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 --===============7732348929276628755==--