Should the TC accept changes listed in the description to resolve issue 66,
for inclusion in specification version(s) "virtio-v1.2-cs01", and future versions of the specification?
Please vote Yes if you agree with all of the following.
If you disagree, please vote No.
If you don't have an opinion, please vote Abstain.
I move that:
The TC agrees to resolve the following specification issue:
Issue #66: virtio-net: Define possibility to deliver per-packet hash
--------------------------------------
Feature VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT indicates the device is able to deliver
per-packet hash. If negotiated, this extends packet structure to include
calculated hash value and hash type, In this case the device also supports
commands for configuration of enabled hashes and a key for hash calculation.
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202002/msg00034.html
--------------------------------------
The TC accepts the following proposed changes to the specification:
--------------------------------------
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202002/msg00034.html
--------------------------------------
The TC agrees to include the above change(s) in specification version(s) "virtio-v1.2-cs01", and future versions of the
specification.
--------------------------------------
Reminder: A Voting Member must be active in a TC to maintain voting rights. As
the Virtio TC has adopted a standing rule to conduct business only by
electronic ballot, without Meetings, a Voting Member who fails to cast a ballot
in two consecutive Work Product Ballots loses his or her voting rights at the
close of the second ballot missed.
--------------------------------------
|