From: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
To: dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org
Cc: 'bpf' <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, bpf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Bpf] ISA document title question
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 15:56:38 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240207215638.GF2087132@maniforge.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <134701da5a0e$2c80c710$85825530$@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1412 bytes --]
On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 01:39:47PM -0800, dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org wrote:
> 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.
Not only this, but we may extend individual conformance groups to new
versions, while leaving others the same. So versioning this document
seems like the wrong granularity. If we want to version anything as 1.0,
we should probably version the conformance groups.
>
> What do folks think about changing the doc to say:
> > =======================================
> > BPF Instruction Set Architecture
> > =======================================
> >
> > This document specifies the BPF instruction set architecture (ISA).
> ?
+1
Thanks,
David
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
To: dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org
Cc: 'bpf' <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, bpf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Bpf] ISA document title question
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 15:56:38 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240207215638.GF2087132@maniforge.lan> (raw)
Message-ID: <20240207215638.oox9rYfGa823R_Ss8W7nxwhjLewiyZPn48j128gYhk8@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <134701da5a0e$2c80c710$85825530$@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1412 bytes --]
On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 01:39:47PM -0800, dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org wrote:
> 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.
Not only this, but we may extend individual conformance groups to new
versions, while leaving others the same. So versioning this document
seems like the wrong granularity. If we want to version anything as 1.0,
we should probably version the conformance groups.
>
> What do folks think about changing the doc to say:
> > =======================================
> > BPF Instruction Set Architecture
> > =======================================
> >
> > This document specifies the BPF instruction set architecture (ISA).
> ?
+1
Thanks,
David
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 76 bytes --]
--
Bpf mailing list
Bpf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bpf
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-07 21:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-07 21:39 ISA document title question dthaler1968
2024-02-07 21:39 ` [Bpf] " dthaler1968=40googlemail.com
2024-02-07 21:56 ` David Vernet [this message]
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=20240207215638.GF2087132@maniforge.lan \
--to=void@manifault.com \
--cc=bpf@ietf.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.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