RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bpf-isa-02

[dthaler1968@googlemail.com]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ines Robles via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 12:13 PM
> To: gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc: bpf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bpf-isa.all@ietf.org; last-call@ietf.org
> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bpf-isa-02
> 
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
> Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for
> the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call
> comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-bpf-isa-02
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review Date: 2024-05-16
> IETF LC End Date: 2024-05-16
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This document specifies the BPF instruction set architecture (ISA). The document
> is clear and well-written. No major issues were found, just some minor
> suggestions.
> 
> Major issues: None
> Minor issues: None
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> * In the introduction, maybe?: "eBPF (which is no longer an acronym for anything),
> also commonly referred to as BPF" --> eBPF (which originally stood for "extended
> Berkeley Packet Filter" but is no longer an acronym), also commonly referred to as
> BPF...

This sounds reasonable to me but at one point the BPF Steering Committee (BSC)
discussed the text to appear on the eBPF Foundation website at
https://ebpf.foundation/ebpf-resources/
(which is where the present text there came from), and at the time they did not want
to state the expansion.

https://ebpf.io/what-is-ebpf/#what-do-ebpf-and-bpf-stand-for on the other hand does.

What do others think about Ines's suggestion?
 
> * It would be nice to add caption to the tables (from Table 3 to Table 18).

Can do.

> Thanks for this document,
> 
> Ines

Thanks for the review,
Dave