Fwd: [Bpf] BPF @ IETF 117 Follow Up

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

I know some chairs send similarly good post-meeting reports, but seeing one done so well after the very first meeting is just awesome. Great job!

Lars

-- 
Sent from a mobile device; please excuse typos.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: David Vernet <[e-mail]>
> Date: July 28, 2023 at 08:47:22 PDT
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Subject: [Bpf] BPF @ IETF 117 Follow Up
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> We had our first official meeting of the BPF working group at IETF 117
> on Monday in San Francisco. The meeting was very productive, so thank
> you to all those who attended and participated. We're excited to
> continue making progress on standardizing BPF with the IETF, and
> hopefully we can carry forward the momentum of the conference as we
> iterate on the many topics that were discussed.
> 
> The meeting can be viewed in its entirety on YouTube at [0], and the
> meeting minutes can be accessed at [1]. A special thank you to those who
> collected notes, and to the presenters.
> 
> [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTtPbJqfYwI
> [1]: https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-117-bpf
> 
> Meeting Recap
> -------------
> 
> Let's go over some of the highlights from the meeting:
> 
> 1. Issue Tracker
> 
> The WG expressed interest in using an issue tracker to ensure that any
> points that have been raised for discussion are properly tracked. A few
> different options were proposed, with the final rough consensus being
> that the chairs would pick an issue tracker and workflow for the WG.
> We'll get to work on this once the conference has concluded, and will
> notify you when we have everything setup.
> 
> 2. eBPF Instruction Set Verification I-D called for adoption
> 
> A call for adoption took place for Dave Thaler's eBPF Instruction Set
> Verification I-D [2].
> 
> [2]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thaler-bpf-isa/
> 
> Rough consensus was obtained at the meeting, and we'll follow up with a
> formal call for adoption on the email list in the near future.
> 
> There are already some reviews and discussions following the meeting,
> which is great to see. Please keep the reviews coming!
> 
> 3. ISA Extension Policy
> 
> Dave Thaler led a discussion on what the policy should be for extending
> the BPF Instruction Set Architecture (ISA) for future instructions which
> are added after the initial ISA standard document is ratified. The
> slides for this discussion can be found in [3].
> 
> [3]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/117/materials/slides-117-bpf-isa-extension-policy-03.pdf
> 
> We covered a lot of ground in this discussion, but we need to close the
> loop on a few things such as whether the registry should be in the IANA
> or the Linux kernel tree, what type of ISA registration policy to use,
> etc.
> 
> 4. All things ABI
> 
> We discussed ABI and BPF program interoperability in a number of
> different contexts. Will Hawkins presented the slides in [4], and
> indicated that he had begun work on an ABI document that he would send
> to the [e-mail] and [e-mail] lists sometime in the near
> future.
> 
> [4]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/117/materials/slides-117-bpf-abi-00.pdf
> 
> Dave Thaler also presented on a topic related to ABI: the eBPF ELF
> Profile Specification. The slides can be found in [5]. In Dave's
> presentation, he pointed out that the btf.rst document [6] currently has
> an "ELF File Format Interface" section that should likely be moved into
> a separate document such as elf.rst. This is also the case for
> instruction-set.rst, as mentioned in the thread in [7].
> 
> [5]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/117/materials/slides-117-bpf-elf-profile-specification-00.pdf
> [6]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git/tree/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst
> [7]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bpf/-NrwjA_6EHQ8y83cMZZGzbT8-wc/
> 
> We agreed that the next step would be to move these ABI sections out of
> any document that we're expecting to be a Proposed Standard, and into
> one or more separate .rst files. While our immediate focus is on the ISA
> document, getting a head-start on the ABI document(s) seems prudent if
> folks have the bandwidth.
> 
> Closing Thoughts
> ----------------
> 
> Overall, the meeting seemed to go very well. We're still in the process
> of learning how to effectively collaborate between the IETF and Linux
> kernel communities, but it's encouraging to see the progress being made
> on the ABI doc(s), and especially the ISA doc. Thank you everyone for
> being patient as we navigate everything, and for setting a respectful
> and collaborative tone for our WG. That said, if anyone is finding the
> arrangement difficult or has feedback of any kind, please feel free to
> reach out to us at [e-mail] so we can help.
> 
> Lastly, we're excited to mention that the first ACM SIGCOMM workshop on
> eBPF and Kernel Extensions will be taking place on September 10, 2023 at
> Columbia University in New York, NY. The list of accepted papers [8]
> looks very interesting, so consider attending if you'd like to learn
> more about BPF, and see what kind of BPF-related research is taking
> place.
> 
> [8]: https://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2023/workshop-ebpf.html
> 
> Regards,
> David and Suresh
> 
> -- 
> Bpf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bpf