I'm really lost in this discussion. All aspects of the ABI are a required part of interoperability. And one of the promises of this IETF eBPF project is to provide for this interoperability. This is a very different situation from the binary ABI for Linux or Windows, which has traditionally never been interoperable between vendors, odd examples like iBCS2 [1] notwithstanding. I'm fine with watering down the wording in the charter a bit in not beeing too specific what documebts we want to work on for the binary compatibility, but I think having it is essential. What do we gain by not having the full binary interface in the working group scope? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Binary_Compatibility_Standard
