[Bpf] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-bpf-isa-03: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 12 June 2024 00:10 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: bpf@ietf.org
Delivered-To: bpf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4E00C1DA2E4; Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.15.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <171815100666.23323.15345858647069376321@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:10:06 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: NOOOF3NZRQDHJ22GQQRKLQ5HJJXSME6W
X-Message-ID-Hash: NOOOF3NZRQDHJ22GQQRKLQ5HJJXSME6W
X-MailFrom: noreply@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: draft-ietf-bpf-isa@ietf.org, bpf-chairs@ietf.org, bpf@ietf.org, void@manifault.com
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Subject: [Bpf] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-bpf-isa-03: (with COMMENT)
List-Id: Discussion of BPF/eBPF standardization efforts within the IETF <bpf.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bpf/DvDgDWOiwk05OyNlWlAmELZFPlM>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bpf>
List-Help: <mailto:bpf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:bpf-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:bpf@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:bpf-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bpf-leave@ietf.org>

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bpf-isa-03: No Objection

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.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


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



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

Thank you to Ines Robles for the GENART review.

** Section 4.3.1
“Historically, each helper function was identified by a static ID encoded in
the 'imm' field. The available helper functions may differ for each program
type, but static IDs are unique across all program types.”

Are static IDs unique across all instances of a given platform running a
program?  I don’t understand what a “program type” is.

** Section 4.3.1.  As a document reader, I’m not sure what I do with this
section as it defines a concept of helper functions but doesn’t specify it.

** Section 7.1.1
“Registration requests for 'Provisional' registration can be included in an
Internet-Draft; when the documents expire or are approved for publication as an
RFC, the registration will be updated.”

In the case of an expired I-D, what does it mean for the “registration to be
updated”?

** Section 7.2
“This document proposes a new IANA registry for BPF instructions, as follows:”

The text in Section 7.1 says it is creating a “sub-registry”.  Here it is a
“registry”.  Why the discrepancy?

** Section 7.5

“'Provisional' registrations can be updated by the original registrant or
anyone designated by the original registrant.”

How does one perform this designation?