* ISA document title question
@ 2024-02-07 21:39 dthaler1968
2024-02-07 21:39 ` [Bpf] " dthaler1968=40googlemail.com
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: dthaler1968 @ 2024-02-07 21:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'bpf', bpf
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bpf] ISA document title question
2024-02-07 21:39 ISA document title question dthaler1968
@ 2024-02-07 21:39 ` dthaler1968=40googlemail.com
2024-02-07 21:56 ` David Vernet
2024-02-07 23:42 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: dthaler1968=40googlemail.com @ 2024-02-07 21:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'bpf', bpf
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bpf] ISA document title question
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
2024-02-07 21:56 ` David Vernet
2024-02-07 23:42 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Vernet @ 2024-02-07 21:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dthaler1968=40googlemail.com; +Cc: 'bpf', bpf
[-- 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 --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bpf] ISA document title question
2024-02-07 21:56 ` David Vernet
@ 2024-02-07 21:56 ` David Vernet
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Vernet @ 2024-02-07 21:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dthaler1968=40googlemail.com; +Cc: 'bpf', bpf
[-- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bpf] ISA document title question
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
@ 2024-02-07 23:42 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-02-07 23:42 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Alexei Starovoitov @ 2024-02-07 23:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Thaler; +Cc: bpf, bpf
On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 1:39 PM
<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.
>
> What do folks think about changing the doc to say:
> > =======================================
> > BPF Instruction Set Architecture
> > =======================================
> >
> > This document specifies the BPF instruction set architecture (ISA).
> ?
Good idea. Makes sense to me.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bpf] ISA document title question
2024-02-07 23:42 ` Alexei Starovoitov
@ 2024-02-07 23:42 ` Alexei Starovoitov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Alexei Starovoitov @ 2024-02-07 23:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Thaler; +Cc: bpf, bpf
On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 1:39 PM
<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.
>
> What do folks think about changing the doc to say:
> > =======================================
> > BPF Instruction Set Architecture
> > =======================================
> >
> > This document specifies the BPF instruction set architecture (ISA).
> ?
Good idea. Makes sense to me.
--
Bpf mailing list
Bpf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bpf
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-02-07 23:43 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
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
2024-02-07 21:56 ` David Vernet
2024-02-07 23:42 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-02-07 23:42 ` Alexei Starovoitov
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox