[Bpf] Paul Wouters' No Objection on draft-ietf-bpf-isa-03: (with COMMENT)

Paul Wouters via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 12 June 2024 19:35 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Paul Wouters via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <171822092753.57182.11787263626141751988@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 12:35:27 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: JUWJH3SICKKPRFAMP4NVJ7K32KVJENFB
CC: draft-ietf-bpf-isa@ietf.org, bpf-chairs@ietf.org, bpf@ietf.org, void@manifault.com
Reply-To: Paul Wouters <paul.wouters@aiven.io>
Subject: [Bpf] Paul Wouters' No Objection on draft-ietf-bpf-isa-03: (with COMMENT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bpf/hGk8HkYxeZTpdu9qW_MvbGKj7WU>

Paul Wouters 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Can the headers in the tables such as in Section 3 be extended so it is
more clear how many bits are in the various fields ? eg the IETF style is:
                     1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|    opcode     |     regs      |            offset             |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                              imm                              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Why "host vs big" endian instead of "host order vs network order" or
"little vs big endian" ? I understand not all hosts are "host endian",
I am just a little confused why to fixup two common sets into a new set.


NITS:

boilerplate got rendered badly

[Bpf] Paul Wouters' No Objection on draft-ietf-bp… Paul Wouters via Datatracker