Ballot Details: Resolve VIRTIO-119: ccw: clarify virtio revision vs. virtio version (CLOSED)

Ballot Question Should the TC accept changes listed in the description to resolve issue VIRTIO-119, for inclusion in specification version(s) "virtio 1.0 cs03", and future versions of the specification?
Ballot Description Please vote Yes if you agree with all of the following.
If you disagree, please vote No.

I move that:
The TC agrees to resolve the following specification issue:
VIRTIO-119: ccw: clarify virtio revision vs. virtio version
--------------------------------------
We need to clarify that:
- a device operating at virtio version 1 needs to operate at least at virtio revision 1
- a device may operate at revision 1 even if it does not operate at version 1
--------------------------------------

The TC accepts the following proposed changes to the specification:
--------------------------------------
Note that accepted commands are governed by revision, not by feature bits:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio/201410/msg00032.html

Note that VERSION_1 requires at least revision 1:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio/201410/msg00033.html
--------------------------------------

The TC agrees to include the above change(s) in specification version(s) "virtio 1.0 cs03", and future versions of the
specification.
Ballot Options
VOTING CLOSED: Thursday, 12 February 2015 @ 7:30 am EST
Yes 0 0
No 2 100
Abstain 2
Open Date Thursday, 5 February 2015 @ 7:30 am EST
Close Date Thursday, 12 February 2015 @ 7:30 am EST
Ballot Type Official, as defined by organization policies and procedures

Voting Statistics

Number of votes cast (excluding abstentions) 2
Eligible members who have voted 4 of 9 44.444%
Eligible members who have not voted 5 of 9 55.556%

Voting Summary by Option

Options with highest number of votes are bold
Option # Votes % of Total
Yes 0 0%
No 2 100%
Abstain 2

Voting Details

Voter Name Company Vote * Time (UTC) Comments
* Huck, Cornelia IBM No 2015-02-10 08:42:00 1
* Tsirkin, Michael Red Hat No 2015-02-08 09:49:00 1
* Kiper, Daniel Oracle Abstain 2015-02-08 23:01:00
* Moll, Pawel ARM Limited Abstain 2015-02-10 12:41:00
* Bottomley, James Parallels IP Holdings GmbH --
* Mundt, Paul Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. --
* Russell, Rusty IBM --
* Shah, Amit Red Hat --
* Venteicher, Bryan NetApp --

Voter Comments

Submitter Vote Comment
Huck, Cornelia
IBM
No Withdrawing my yes; we need more discussion.
Tsirkin, Michael
Red Hat
No I think I disagree with this one.
First proposal seems to allow negotiating
revision 1 but not VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1.
This contradicts an explicit requirement that
all drivers negotiate VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1.

Second part of the proposal seems to allow
drivers which don't negotiate revision 1.
If this discusses support for legacy drivers,
by transitional devices, this should go into
a legacy section, and be made explicit.

Also, the wording could be better: "if not at least revision 1 has
been negociated" does not look like good english.