Ballot Details: Request a Special Majority Vote for the advancement of the draft virtio-1.0-wd03 from 2015-03-18 as a Committee Specification virtio-1.0-cs03 (CLOSED)

Ballot Question Should the TC accept changes listed in the description as non material, and Request a Special Majority Vote for the advancement of the draft with these changes as a Committee Specification?
Ballot Description 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:

Conditional on the TC approving unanimously the
proposed resolutions to outstanding ballots:

to resolve issues VIRTIO-130, VIRTIO-133, VIRTIO-135, VIRTIO-136

The TC resolves that the following, previously and separately approved, changes to the specification are all Non-Material:

VIRTIO-129: legacy: clean up virtqueue layout definitions

Generalize ”Legacy Interfaces: A Note
on Virtqueue Layout” to allow for different
alignment requirements. Have pci and
ccw refer to that section for legacy devices.
Remove the double definition of virtqueue
alignment (which referred to legacy, but
was not tagged as such) from the ccw section.
See 2.4.2, and

VIRTIO-118: ccw: clarify basic channel commands

”Basic channel commands” seems to be
not as clear as it could, so let’s spell out
which channel commands we refer to. See

VIRTIO-116: ccw: allow WRITE_STATUS to fail

We want to be able to fail setting a status
on the device (e.g. FEATURES_OK if the
device can’t work with the features negotiated).
The easiest way to do that is to
allow the device to fail the WRITE_STATUS command
by posting a command reject. See
VIRTIO-135: virtio-ring: comment fixup

virtio_ring.h included with spec has this
/* Support for avail_idx and used_idx fields */
it should really refer to avail_event
and used_event. See Appendix A.

VIRTIO-136: document idx field in virtqueue used ring

Section 2.4.8 The Virtqueue Used Ring
listed the idx field, but never documented
it. See 2.4.8.

The TC resolves to request a Special Majority Vote for the advancement of the draft
virtio-v1.0-wd03, with the above changes, with the addition of a changelog
listing the above changes, as a Committee Specification

Location of the specification draft with the above changes:

This archive includes the editable Tex sources,
specification in PDF and HTML formats, as well as
versions with changes since CS02 highlighted.

For convenience, specification in PDF format with above changes
highlighted is provided:

You can also use the "revision history" chapter to locate the changes more easily.

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.

Ballot Options
VOTING CLOSED: Tuesday, 24 March 2015 @ 5:53 am EDT
Yes 6 66.667
No 3 33.333
Abstain 0
Open Date Wednesday, 18 March 2015 @ 2:00 pm EDT
Close Date Tuesday, 24 March 2015 @ 5:53 am EDT
Ballot Type Official, as defined by organization policies and procedures

Referenced Items

Name Type Date

  • Folder: Documents
  • Group: OASIS Virtual I/O Device (VIRTIO) TC
  • State: Draft
  • 2MB
page=ballotrefitems&type=document Document 2015-03-18


  • Folder: Documents
  • Group: OASIS Virtual I/O Device (VIRTIO) TC
  • State: Draft
  • 453K
virtio-1.0-wd03-diff.pdf Document 2015-03-18

Voting Statistics

Number of votes cast (excluding abstentions) 9
Eligible members who have voted 9 of 9 100%
Eligible members who have not voted 0 of 9 0%

Voting Summary by Option

Options with highest number of votes are bold
Option # Votes % of Total
Yes 6 66.667%
No 3 33.333%
Abstain 0

Voting Details

Voter Name Company Vote * Time (UTC) Comments
* Bottomley, James Parallels IP Holdings GmbH Yes 2015-03-20 18:16:00
* Kiper, Daniel Oracle Yes 2015-03-23 12:30:00
* Moll, Pawel ARM Limited Yes 2015-03-23 16:44:00
* Mundt, Paul Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Yes 2015-03-23 08:58:00
* Shah, Amit Red Hat Yes 2015-03-19 10:03:00
* Venteicher, Bryan NetApp Yes 2015-03-22 15:40:00
* Huck, Cornelia IBM No 2015-03-24 07:50:00 1
* Russell, Rusty IBM No 2015-03-24 01:04:00 1
* Tsirkin, Michael Red Hat No 2015-03-24 09:52:00 1

Voter Comments

Submitter Vote Comment
Huck, Cornelia
No Changed my vote to no due to the used->len improvements as well.
Tsirkin, Michael
Red Hat
No Rusty convinced me that we need to add wording to
better define the meaning and
requirements of the len field.
changing vote to No.
Russell, Rusty
No We should include the improved used->len definition, thus the NO vote.