David Vernet <void@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Thanks for clarifying. Erik, Suresh and I met yesterday to try and find a middle > ground that addresses everyone's concerns, and we came up with [0]. > > [0]: > https://github.com/ekline/bpf/blob/ekline-patch-1/charter-ietf-bpf.txt#L31 > > Does that sound reasonable to you? Yes, other than some punctuation nits (https://github.com/ekline/bpf/pull/7). Dave > I must admit that I feel quite strongly that a Proposed Standard is not the right > move for now. Many of the existing ABI conventions that exist today are simply > artifacts of somewhat arbitrary choices that were made early-on in libbpf. I say > "arbitrary" here not to imply that they weren't well thought out, but rather just > to say that like many other decisions in software projects, they were made > somewhat organically and without the benefit of hindsight and a larger corpus > of participants. > > > 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. > > I completely understand the motivation. Hopefully an Information document > will address those concerns? Let me know what you think. > > - David
