From: dthaler1968@googlemail.com
To: "'bpf'" <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, <bpf@ietf.org>
Subject: ISA document title question
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 13:39:47 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <134701da5a0e$2c80c710$85825530$@gmail.com> (raw)
The Internet Draft filename is draft-ietf-bpf-isa-XX, and the charter has:
> [PS] the BPF instruction set architecture (ISA) that defines the
> instructions and low-level virtual machine for BPF programs,
That is, "instruction set architecture (ISA)", but the document itself has:
> =======================================
> BPF Instruction Set Specification, v1.0
> =======================================
>
> This document specifies version 1.0 of the BPF instruction set.
Notably, no "architecture (ISA)". Also, we now have a mechanism
to extend it with conformance groups over time, so "v1.0" seems
less relevant and perhaps not important given there's only one
version being standardized at present.
What do folks think about changing the doc to say:
> =======================================
> BPF Instruction Set Architecture
> =======================================
>
> This document specifies the BPF instruction set architecture (ISA).
?
Dave
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org
To: "'bpf'" <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, <bpf@ietf.org>
Subject: [Bpf] ISA document title question
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 13:39:47 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <134701da5a0e$2c80c710$85825530$@gmail.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20240207213947.6uVseseclwAfCOBxdr980Tj5HT4nWjXTkXnUhSaXNl0@z> (raw)
The Internet Draft filename is draft-ietf-bpf-isa-XX, and the charter has:
> [PS] the BPF instruction set architecture (ISA) that defines the
> instructions and low-level virtual machine for BPF programs,
That is, "instruction set architecture (ISA)", but the document itself has:
> =======================================
> BPF Instruction Set Specification, v1.0
> =======================================
>
> This document specifies version 1.0 of the BPF instruction set.
Notably, no "architecture (ISA)". Also, we now have a mechanism
to extend it with conformance groups over time, so "v1.0" seems
less relevant and perhaps not important given there's only one
version being standardized at present.
What do folks think about changing the doc to say:
> =======================================
> BPF Instruction Set Architecture
> =======================================
>
> This document specifies the BPF instruction set architecture (ISA).
?
Dave
--
Bpf mailing list
Bpf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bpf
next reply other threads:[~2024-02-07 21:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-07 21:39 dthaler1968 [this message]
2024-02-07 21:39 ` [Bpf] ISA document title question dthaler1968=40googlemail.com
2024-02-07 21:56 ` David Vernet
2024-02-07 21:56 ` David Vernet
2024-02-07 23:42 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-02-07 23:42 ` Alexei Starovoitov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='134701da5a0e$2c80c710$85825530$@gmail.com' \
--to=dthaler1968@googlemail.com \
--cc=bpf@ietf.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox