Hi Med,
> I confirm that what I meant is "bits per second" to align with rfc8299#6.12.1.
Ah.
> I'm actually for more explicit units similar to what we are using in another
> active spec:
As long as there is this confusion in YANG units, that is the only way that
makes sense.
One little tweak I’d have for that spec:
> ==
> enum bit-ps {
> value 2;
> description
> "Bits per Second (bit/s).";
> }
> enum byte-ps {
> value 3;
> description
> "Bytes per second (Byte/s).";
Maybe use the actual ISO/IEC 80000 notation here: B/s.
(For those that don’t know how ISO/IEC 80000 allocates “B” for byte, the legend
“Bytes per second” is unambiguous.)
> }
> ==
>
> However, we are in a territory where we are trying to map as much to the
> above service model and hence use the same labels for the units.
>
> FWIW, RFC8466 used to have the following:
>
> =
> leaf pbs {
> type uint64;
> units "bps";
> description
> "Peak Burst Size. It is measured in bytes per
> second.";
> }
> =
>
> ...which is weird.
This is really errata land, as “bps” is used as the kitchen slang for “bit/s”
in all other cases (along with “mbps” for Mbit/s, shudder).
> This is why we don't blindly inherit that draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm and went for
> the following:
>
> leaf pbs {
> type uint64;
> units "bytes per second";
> description
> "Peak Burst Size.";
> }
I think this would also benefit from “Bytes per Second (B/s)”.
Grüße, Carsten
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Carsten Bormann <[email protected]>
>> Envoyé : lundi 4 octobre 2021 17:50
>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email protected]>
>> Cc : Francesca Palombini <[email protected]>; The IESG
>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; opsawg-
>> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
>> Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-
>> l3sm-l3nm-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>>
>> On 2021-10-04, at 13:34, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> bytes per second (bps),
>>
>> Whoa.
>>
>> I know that the IETF doesn’t usually care about precision in these things,
>> but “bps” is kitchen slang for “bit/s”, so this is very confusing.
>>
>> (Given that we have done the work in RFC 8428 and 8798, I’d rather see
>> that we use it, instead of creating more confusion at each further step.
>> We do have ms and B/s in RFC 8798, because people using SenML asked for
>> that.)
>>
>> Grüße, Carsten
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu
> ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
> falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
> this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
> modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
