Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, wrote: > > 12 eBPF (which is no longer an acronym for anything), also commonly > > I assumed that 'e' was for 'extended' and that BPF stands for 'BSD Packet > Filter' originally described and specified in a paper titled "The BSD > Packet Filter: A New Architecture for User-level Packet Capture" by > Steven McCanne and Van Jacobson, presented at the 1993 Winter > USENIX Conference. This paper introduced the BPF architecture, which > was designed for efficient packet filtering and capture. > > Hence a bit surprised why the first words of the first line in > the first paragraph of the draft abstract suggest that its > not an acronym? Éric Vyncke wrote: > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bpf-isa-03: Yes > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses > included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, > however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot- > positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bpf-isa/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Nice document, easy to read and understand and the shepherd's write-up > companion is also clear. > > Just two COMMENTs (no need to reply, but replies will be appreciated): > > 1) like Gunter, having an expansion to "eBPF is related or is the successor of > extended Berkeley Packet Filter" would comfort the readers about what they are > reading. The existing text is derived from what is at https://ebpf.io/what-is-ebpf/ and a much longer exposition would be more appropriate for a different document on the WG charter ("[I] an architecture and framework document"). However, https://ebpf.io/what-is-ebpf/#what-do-ebpf-and-bpf-stand-for does have the FAQ answer for "What do eBPF and BPF stand for?": > BPF originally stood for Berkeley Packet Filter, but now that eBPF > (extended BPF) can do so much more than packet filtering, the acronym > no longer makes sense. eBPF is now considered a standalone term that > doesn’t stand for anything. In the Linux source code, the term BPF > persists, and in tooling and in documentation, the terms BPF and eBPF > are generally used interchangeably. The original BPF is sometimes > referred to as cBPF (classic BPF) to distinguish it from eBPF. That paragraph, or some variation of it, would in my opinion be appropriate in the architecture/ framework document, but do we really want it in *every* other document from the WG? That would seem needlessly redundant to me. There are plenty of examples in the world of things that started as acronyms and no longer stand for anything and so are not expanded (AT&T, NPR, CBS, 3M, SOS, etc.) See http://blog.writeathome.com/index.php/2013/10/12-initials-that-stand-for-nothing/ for one of many articles with a list of such terms, but web searches will turn up plenty of other references. Trying to explain in every news article that uses one of those terms what it originally stood for but doesn't any more, doesn't seem particularly helpful to me and certainly isn't commonly done. Dave
