> -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Thaler > Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 5:05 AM > To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Will Hawkins <hawkinsw@xxxxxx>; Watson Ladd > <watsonbladd@xxxxxxxxx>; bpf@xxxxxxxx; bpf <bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: RE: [Bpf] Review of draft-thaler-bpf-isa-01 > > Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 6:55 PM Dave Thaler <dthaler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > [...] > > I interpreted this as saying no one cared about having the IANA > > considerations section in a separate file there. But we confirm > > consensus on the list, so it's fine to revisit now if there are good reasons to > do so. > > > > I think IANA consideration section is orthogonal to giant opcode table. > > It's not orthogonal, such a table is a required part of the IANA Considerations > section. See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126#section-2.2 > (specifically the "Initial assignments and reservations"). > > > They're related, but don't have to be together in one .rst file. > > True. > > > I think it's cleaner to have separate instruction-set-opcode.rst > > Sure. Forgot to add: yes, they're already in separate rst files in my pending changes, which get combined into the same section of the Internet Draft when it's generated. Dave
