Nate Foster

After discussion at the May 13th 2024 LDWG, we agreed that @jonathan-dilorenzo would create a PR to improve the wording in the specification, including clarifying uses of "maximum size" as...

Marking this as PSA. I would propose that you prototype it there, and then bring it back to the LDWG group if it is working well.

It's worth considering whether we need to add a new primitive for this. Here's a simple example code snippet that is already legal P4_16 that shows how one could pick...

I agree the compiler would need to do something extra, but it should be relatively easy to identify and eliminate a table with no keys (like `s`) provided its actions...

Hi @jafingerhut I agree that programmers shouldn't have to write large amounts of code to do simple things. We want to provide primitives that make the common case simple and...

> Nate's approach is much more powerful, since it allows choosing the set of fields on a per-packet basis. My original example used a table without keys, which can only...

Hi Vladimir, Thanks for sending this again. Is this something we could fruitfully discuss on Monday at the P4 LDWG meeting? If so, could you lead it? -N On Wed,...

My preference would be to work out a general solution (e.g., read queue depths) than to bake in a congestion bit with target-specific semantics into PSA, even if the practical...

+1 On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Calin Cascaval wrote: > Is (egress_timestamp - ingress_timestamp) platform specific? I should > think it depends on the speed at which...

I was happy with what @jafingerhut proposed: > When a new table entry is added for a table that has a DirectCounter, I am assuming the corresponding counter state for...