* Michael S. Tsirkin () wrote:
> At the Virtio BoF at the virtual KVM forum, 2020, a recurring theme was
> the difficulty contributors face in obtaining device IDs for new
> devices. As allocating a new ID is a technicality, and can not break
> existing devices, it does not sound too bad to skip a voting step in
> that process.
It would seem reasonable to define what the expectations, if any are,
about the use of those IDs:
Is it expected that the allocator of such an ID would eventually
end a request to merge a spec for the device, or are they free
not to?
If merging is expected, then is it acceptable to recycle IDs that have
not been defined after n-Years.
Dave
> I'd like to hear TC's take on such an idea.
>
> This would be similar to the existing standing rule:
>
> Minor cleanups, including editorial formatting changes, spelling
> and typo fixes can be committed directly into git for approval as part
> of the next specification approval ballot.
>
> --
> MST
>
>
> This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to the
> OASIS Virtual I/O Device (VIRTIO) TC.
>
> In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License terms and
> to minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required
> before posting.
>
> Subscribe:
> Unsubscribe:
> List help:
> List archive: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/
> Feedback License: https://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf
> List Guidelines: https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/mailing-lists
> Committee: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/virtio/
> Join OASIS: https://www.oasis-open.org/join/
>
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / / Manchester, UK
