Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf, docs: Use RFC 2119 language for ISA requirements

[David Vernet <void@manifault.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1151 bytes --]

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 09:58:55AM -0700, Dave Thaler wrote:
> Per IETF convention and discussion at LSF/MM/BPF, use MUST etc.
> keywords as requested by IETF Area Director review.  Also as
> requested, indicate that documenting BTF is out of scope of this
> document and will be covered by a separate IETF specification.
> 
> Added paragraph about the terminology that is required IETF boilerplate
> and must be worded exactly as such.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dave Thaler <dthaler1968@googlemail.com>

Acked-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>

We still have "may" in a couple of places, as in e.g.:

Note that there are two flavors of ``JA`` instructions. The ``JMP``
class permits a 16-bit jump offset specified by the 'offset' field,
whereas the ``JMP32`` class permits a 32-bit jump offset specified by
the 'imm' field. A > 16-bit conditional jump may be converted to a <
16-bit conditional jump plus a 32-bit unconditional jump.

Also in the "Helper functions" and "Maps" sections.

Do we need to fix those as well? Or are they considered semantically
different than how RFC 2119 would define the terms?

Thanks,
David

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]