RE: [Bpf] IETF BPF working group draft charter

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



David Vernet writes:
[...]
> I'd like to highlight this line in particular:
> 
> > This means any version of this specification published at the above
> > link can be regarded as stable in the technical sense of the word (but
> > not necessarily in the official RISC-V International specification
> > state meaning), with the official specification state being an
> > indicator of the completeness, clarity and general editorial quality
> > of the specification.
> 
> To my reading, this sounds a lot more like a (strongly advised) informational
> document, than a formal standard.
> 
> > The eBPF Foundation could publish the equivalent of the
> > riscv-calling.pdf document above, but we (the IETF and BPF
> > communities) decided the IETF was the best place to publish such
> > documents.  As such, I envision an IETF RFC for the BPF calling convention
> that is very similar to the RISC-V standard one above.
> >
> > Given the precedent, and the need in BPF, I don't see a problem.
> 
> Just to make sure we're all on the same page here: Are you proposing that we
> publish a formal standard for psABI specifications, or are you proposing we
> publish an informationl document?

In an email last week to the list I mentioned Informational as a possibility.
I don't have a strong preference, but I have a weak preference for Proposed
Standard status.

As an implementer, I would want to make sure that ebpf-for-windows,
PREVAIL, and uBPF all do the same thing, ideally matching Linux for everything
the former projects support, to allow using consistent tooling.

Dave
 






[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux