On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 01:39:47PM -0800, dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
