Carsten & Med, Thanks for raising this. I agree with the errata, but this will need to be hold for doc update, because we cannot create a different revision of a YANG module through the errata process.
Thanks, Rob From: iesg <iesg-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Francesca Palombini Sent: 05 October 2021 15:12 To: Carsten Bormann <c...@tzi.org>; mohamed.boucad...@orange.com Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; The IESG <i...@ietf.org>; net...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Thanks Carsten for noticing this! I did overlook completely that bps was being used as bytes per seconds... Thanks Med for clarifying in this document and for opening errata https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6703 . The OPS ADs are on it, I am sure. Francesca From: Carsten Bormann <c...@tzi.org<mailto:c...@tzi.org>> Date: Tuesday, 5 October 2021 at 09:05 To: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>> Cc: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palomb...@ericsson.com<mailto:francesca.palomb...@ericsson.com>>, The IESG <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>>, draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org> <draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org>>, opsawg-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org> <opsawg-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>>, opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> <opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>>, net...@ietf.org<mailto:net...@ietf.org> <net...@ietf.org<mailto:net...@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) 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 <c...@tzi.org<mailto:c...@tzi.org>> >> Envoyé : lundi 4 octobre 2021 17:50 >> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET >> <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>> >> Cc : Francesca Palombini >> <francesca.palomb...@ericsson.com<mailto:francesca.palomb...@ericsson.com>>; >> The IESG >> <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>>; >> draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l...@ietf.org>; >> opsawg- >> cha...@ietf.org<mailto:cha...@ietf.org>; >> opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; >> net...@ietf.org<mailto:net...@ietf.org> >> 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, >> mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> 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. >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
