unknown precision != arbitrary precision /js
On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 04:35:06PM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > [As an individual] > > I agree with Juergen that in many configuration cases, using decimal64 is > better/safer than binary float/double. However, there are other scenarios, > such as operational data coming from sensors, where float/double is probably > more appropriate/useful, hence I would still like to see the next version of > YANG supporting float/double, possibly restricted to operational data only. > > For configuration, with regards to the rounding errors alluded to below, I do > have some sympathy with Chris's suggestion of support for arbitrary precision > decimal numbers. It seems that more and more languages have native support > for arbitrary precision decimal maths. I note that CBOR also has an encoding > for them, and a JSON/XML encoding of them is seemingly trivial. > > Regards, > Rob > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: netmod <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder > > Sent: 07 July 2020 12:25 > > To: Christian Hopps <[email protected]> > > Cc: NetMod WG <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [netmod] Justification for decimal64 over string for floating > > point values in geo location data? > > > > Precision often means different things to different people. Here is my > > take: > > > > - Floating point numbers have almost always rounding errors. And > > floating point numbers use binary fractions, a decimal fraction like > > 1.0 has no precise representation as a binary fraction. Type 0.1 + > > 0.2 into python or haskell or any other language that gives you bare > > floating point numbers and enjoy the result. > > > > - Fixed precision decimal numbers do not have rounding errors since > > they are essentially scaled integers and hence they are precise as > > long as calculations stay within the range. > > > > - Floating point numbers can cover a large number space (from very > > tiny to really big), fixed precision decimal numbers are much more > > restrictive. > > > > - In XML and JSON, numbers are rendered in strings that likely do not > > look much different if its a decimal64 or a float or ... If you really > > care about size, use a binary encoding like CBOR. > > > > /js > > > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 07:06:20AM -0400, Christian Hopps wrote: > > > I received feedback in my YANG doctor review (thanks Mahesh) regarding > > the use of decimal64 for most of the values in the geo location grouping > > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04). In my > > comparison sections I note that some precision (at the very extremes) may > > be lost when converting from other geo location formats that use string > > (or double for w3c) to decimal64. Given that mention of loss of extreme > > precision, the reviewer was asking if some justification for the decimal64 > > should be given in the document. > > > > > > What are the advantages to using decimal64 for floating point numbers vs > > using a string with a pattern "[0-9]+(\.[0-9]+)?" (convert that to yang > > pattern language). The advantage of using a string is that the precision > > of the value is not restricted by the model. Does the YANG decimal64 > > values have a concise binary format that can be more efficiently > > transported or stored in binary form? If so is this the only advantage, > > and is it enough of one to limit the precision in the model? > > > > > > It's definitely worth noting that the precision of the decimal64 values > > seem vastly adequate for geo location data (e.g., for Cartesian > > coordinates and height values which are measured in meters the fractional > > digits is 6 which means the surface could be up to 9 billion kilometers > > large (or away from for height) and the precision is to the micrometer. > > For ellipsoidal coordinates there are 12 fractional digits for the > > degrees. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Chris. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > netmod mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > > > > > -- > > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netmod mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
