2025-09-03 TSC Meeting
Date
Sep 3, 2025
Disclosures
Participants
Agenda
Approve August 6 meeting minutes (link)
Profiles Development Process document (@David Weaver and @James Ball (Deactivated)) - 20 minutes
TSC Strategic Priority Summary and Action Item Review (@Rafael Sene) - 20 minutes
RPMI Charter Update Review (@Rahul Pathak (Unlicensed) and @Ley Foon Tan) - 15 minutes
Updated charter: link
Crypto SIG Charter Review (@Markku-Juhani Saarinen) - 15 minutes
New charter: link
RISC-V Policy development, progress, and the rationale behind the upcoming Policy updates (@Ken Dockser) 15 min
Presentations
Title | Presenter | File | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Profiles Development Process | James Ball and David Weaver | |
Votes
None - quorum was not met.
Notes & Action Items
Recording & transcript: link
Summary
Profiles Development Process document
The Profiles SIG updated and approved a new development process document, replacing an older policy document that had become outdated. The key changes include more detailed explanations of mandatory and optional extensions, clarification of major and minor profile releases, and standardized terminology. The group decided to move away from using year numbers in profile names and established a release cadence of major profiles every 2-3 years and minor profiles up to twice yearly. The process document is now being sent to the TSC for approval as the official development process for profiles, with the Profiles SIG noting that while they are inspired by semantic versioning, they are not strictly following it.
The team discussed the process for reviewing and voting on a document, agreeing to allow comments via email to the mailing list and directly in the Confluence document, with a two-week review period before voting. David will post the document to the TSC mailing list today, and Jeff offered to show him how to enable email notifications for document changes.
TSC Strategic Priority Summary and Action Item Review
Rafael presented a summary of strategic priorities work, which is accessible on the Wiki under "TSC priorities 2025," and explained that while only TSC chairs can edit the content, anyone can add comments.
The section of the meeting focused on reviewing various technical priorities. Rafael presented updates on vector extensions, DSP extensions, and several other technical areas, noting that most items were covered by existing working groups. Greg and others provided clarifications and additional context on various topics, including vector instruction modularity and reconfigurable GPUs. Markku-Juhani raised points about carry-less multiply and confidential computing, suggesting that some items might be addressed by ongoing fast-tracks or crypto working groups. The discussion highlighted that while many topics had existing coverage, some areas like persistent flushing and customizable ISA for power efficiency might need further attention or new initiatives.
The team reviewed ongoing tasks related to supervisor domains and confidential VM extension work, confirming these were being addressed by existing efforts. Charlie raised a concern about Packed SIMD being omitted from strategic items, which Guy clarified was already planned and needed to be included in the strategic roadmap. The group discussed the need to categorize member suggestions into ongoing versus new initiatives, with Krste emphasizing that member interest alone doesn't guarantee action. Rafael presented updates on non-ISA items including performance monitoring, Unified DB documentation, and various profile developments, noting that the RVM TG was forming and the Automotive SIG was proceeding with call for candidates.
The group discussed various profile-related topics, including security models, debug traces, and compliance profiles. They clarified that the security model is part of the platform specification and is being addressed by the RVM TG. The team also discussed the need for a compliance profile, which Rafael explained is tied to certification and ensuring implementation compliance with RISC-V. They agreed to reach out to the submitter for more information on the compliance profile. Finally, they touched on the BRS test specification, which Anup clarified is part of the TG charter and not covered by the platform test specification.
The team discussed several ongoing projects and initiatives, including secure boot certification, reference design implementations, and various software components. Ravi reported that outreach to Microsoft regarding secure boot certification has begun, with Andrea noting that an unofficial certificate may be used for development in the meantime. The group also touched on approximate computing, drone CPU requirements, and various software development tools and frameworks. Several action items were identified, including revising the sail backlog, working with Microsoft on secure boot certification, and reaching out to various groups for input on specific projects.
The team discussed the consolidated list of gaps and action items from a recent survey, with Greg and Krste explaining that the list serves three purposes: tracking items already being addressed, identifying new action items, and broadcasting unaddressed gaps to build critical mass for further action. Rafael agreed to update the document with today's feedback and share it later, while the group decided to maintain the document as a living record that will be updated quarterly rather than restarting the process in January. The team also discussed tracking mechanisms for the items, with Andrea suggesting linking to Jira tickets for items being addressed, though they agreed to start with a simple quarterly review process before adding more complex tracking systems.
RPMI Charter Update Review
The meeting focused on the RISC-V Platform Management Interface (RPMI) charter update for 2025. Ley presented the new features and enhancements planned for version 2.0, including service groups for power monitoring, capping, sensor management, and others. The group discussed the review process, agreeing to a two-week review period before conducting a vote. Ken raised a concern about the naming convention, questioning if "2.0" might be confusing, but Anup explained they follow a convention of using major versions for new iterations even without ABI changes. Jeff concluded by outlining the next steps, including working with chairs to send out a review request email.
Crypto SIG Charter Review
The meeting focused on reviewing a new charter for the Crypto Special Interest Group (SIG), which Markku-Juhani explained is a continuation of previous crypto work. The SIG will monitor developments in cryptography, particularly their implications for RISC-V, and examine new algorithms, protocols, standards, and attacks. Markku-Juhani clarified that while the SIG does not directly test compliance, they ensure that RISC-V ISAs are forward-looking and aligned with standards like NIST and the Cyber Resilience Act. Ken inquired about compliance testing, to which Markku-Juhani explained that they verify the ISAs are not missing crucial features for certification, while actual testing is done by laboratories and vendors.
RISC-V Policy development, progress, …
Ken presented updates to the RISC-V policies and procedures document, which is being revised to align with ISO standards. He explained several clarifications made to the document, including rules about meeting agendas, quorum requirements, and how participation is tracked for voting rights. The updated document will be reviewed by the Board at their meeting on September 25th, after which it will go into effect.
Detailed Notes
Quorum not met, so approval of prior minutes not approved.
Profiles Development Process document
Discussion:
Did we consider compatibility instead of required features for major release designation?
Yes, it was discussed and the elected to use out of required features.What is our plan if we have breakage?
It’s been discussed, but not worried about naming. Do believe we should establish a process for deprecation but will be long term scale.Intent is that with optional features that those which will be required are marked as “Development” to indicate future requirement.
Next steps:
David will post information to list for review, 2 weeks. Comments should go to mailing list.
Then will kick off vote.
Strategic Priorities Summary
Vector Modularity being discussed by Vector SIG.
Composable Custom Extensions helps with some reconfiguration items.
Crypto SIG can help with carryless items.
AI: We should split the list into those items covered and those which are not addressed.
AI: We need to vet the new items to those which have been added to the roadmap.
SOC Infra HC is considering an new High Performance I/O SIG.
Automotive SIG will need to drive the new profiles and platforms.
Industrial SIG discussion has started. Summit will be used to recruit more supporters and promote more discussions.
The Debug/Trace and Interrupt Profile is being addressed by RVM TG as a subsystem specification.
The CSC is covering the ISA compliance, but not as a profile.
Contact with Microsoft has occurred for signing. We have temporary keys to use during development but without production hardware this is not yet required.
Next steps:
AI list (link)
Need to publish the list of uncovered items to encourage others to help. Should route to SIG when possible where discussions are occurring.
Will roll this into a rolling document that gets visited quarterly
RPMI Charter Update
This charter is an update to do a 2.0 version of the RPMI specification which was ratified this year.
Next steps: Will distribute for a review (2 weeks) to the TSC mailing list. Then will make updates and send to vote.
Crypto SIG Charter
Discussion:
What is meant by compliance?
Multiple meanings depending on context. When dealing with compliance we don’t create tests for compliance. We are working with other organizations looking when they are raising the requirements.
Next steps: Will distribute for a review (2 weeks) to the TSC mailing list. Then will make updates and send to vote.
RISC-V Policy development and progress
The existing procedures (v105) were created to facilitate ISO standardization.
John Hengeveld has moved on, so Ken has assumed leadership on new writing.
Using Jira of issues and working with Board Governance Committee.
Many updates are focused on points of confusion
Meeting types
Quorum requirements
Participation
Target is approval by Board in September meeting
Action Items
