Re: [virtio-comment] TAB Comments on Virtual I/O Device (VIRTIO) Version 1.0

[Rusty Russell <rusty@au1.ibm.com>]

"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 05:01:24PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> writes:
>> > TAB-556	Conformance targets
>> > 
>> > 	After reading 2.2.1 Legacy Interface, again, I have a suggestion
>> > 	for conformance targets in section 9 (subject to my getting this
>> > 	wrong): 1. Non-Transitional Device - enumerate which sections of
>> > 	normative text I MUST conform to in order to have a
>> > 	Non-Transitional Device. 2. Non-Transitional Driver - enumerate
>> > 	which sections of normative text I MUST conform to in order to
>> > 	have a Non-Transitional Driver. 3. #1 plus ?? = Transitional
>> > 	Device. 4. #2 plus ?? = Transitional Driver with the
>> > 	sub-numbering under 1 - 4 specifying the details of
>> > 	conformance. Yes?
>> 
>> I originally wanted to make all the legacy sections non-normative, and
>> thus avoid any MUSTs in there.  It's a bit weird, becuase legacy systems
>> our outside the scope of the current standard, but we really do want to
>> be kind for people in transition.
>> 
>> I think Michael had objections to this, though.  So here's my
>> compromise:
>
> I thought about this some more.
> This will basically mean that 1.0 co-exists with 0.9
> and we'll have to maintain 0.9 and fix bugs there :(
>
> It isn't a lot of work to make it normative, why not
> do it and make 1.0 supercede 0.9 completely?

I can see your point, but I'll have to think about it.  I have just
spent three days sorting out the normative from non-normative sections
of our document, and it's not a trivial transformation.

Cheers,
Rusty.