One possibility which is unusual but has been done in some cases is to have an Informational RFC for something that is later standardized by another body. (RFC 3678 is one of a couple of such examples.) Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Bpf <bpf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 10:58 AM > To: bpf@xxxxxxxx; bpf <bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [Bpf] IETF BPF working group draft charter > > > David Vernet <void@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), there isn't really a > > precedence for standardizing ABIs like this. For example, x86 calling > > All of the eBPF work seems unprecedented. > I don't see having this in the charter is a problem. > > We may fail to get consensus on it, and not make a milestone, but I don't see a > reason not to be allowed to talk about this. > (and maybe in the end, it's a no-op) > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > >
