> -----Original Message----- > From: Ines Robles via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 12:13 PM > To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx > Cc: bpf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-bpf-isa.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bpf-isa-02 > > Reviewer: Ines Robles > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review > Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for > the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call > comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. > > Document: draft-ietf-bpf-isa-02 > Reviewer: Ines Robles > Review Date: 2024-05-16 > IETF LC End Date: 2024-05-16 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > > This document specifies the BPF instruction set architecture (ISA). The document > is clear and well-written. No major issues were found, just some minor > suggestions. > > Major issues: None > Minor issues: None > Nits/editorial comments: > > * In the introduction, maybe?: "eBPF (which is no longer an acronym for anything), > also commonly referred to as BPF" --> eBPF (which originally stood for "extended > Berkeley Packet Filter" but is no longer an acronym), also commonly referred to as > BPF... This sounds reasonable to me but at one point the BPF Steering Committee (BSC) discussed the text to appear on the eBPF Foundation website at https://ebpf.foundation/ebpf-resources/ (which is where the present text there came from), and at the time they did not want to state the expansion. https://ebpf.io/what-is-ebpf/#what-do-ebpf-and-bpf-stand-for on the other hand does. What do others think about Ines's suggestion? > * It would be nice to add caption to the tables (from Table 3 to Table 18). Can do. > Thanks for this document, > > Ines Thanks for the review, Dave
