[Bpf] Warren Kumari's Yes on charter-ietf-bpf-00-03: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-bpf-00-03: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-bpf/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have some comments -- please note that these really are just comments; feel
free to bend, fold, mutilate or ignore them. None of these are worth slowing
this down over...

1: "technology with origins in the Linux kernel that can safely run programs in
a privileged context such as the operating system kernel."
 -- I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the use of 'safely' here. It might be that
 you can run programs in a privileged context without the machine going boom -
 but you can also run "dangerous" programs that e.g hide attack traffic, or
 simply drop all traffic, or... Can we perhaps drop the word?

2: "There is currently no formal standard for eBPF and no clear scope for what
is part of eBPF and what is not."
 -- True, but that's just a problem statement. The charter sort of implies that
 it will make a standard, but it doesn't really imply that it will clarify the
 scope.

3: "The working group shall not adopt new work until these documents have
progressed to working group last call." - do we really have to prohibit this in
the charter? The "these documents" is quite hand-wavy, and it seems
unproductive to prohibit (in charter) adopting new work if it is needed. If the
WG discovers that it needs e.g a terminology document to make things make
sense, it seems like they should be able to do so (perhaps after discussing
with the AD).

4: OCD Nit - Some of the bullets (1,2,6,7,8,9) start with uppercase, some
(3,4,5) are lowercase. If you make any other changes, can you please also fix
these (so I can stop twitching :-))