----- Original Message ----- From: "Dhruv Dhody" <[email protected]> To: "t.petch" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 3:06 PM Subject: RE: [Pce] Encoding in draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware
Hi Tom, Looks like you are poking the dead http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/netmod/yang-1.1/issues.html#sec-41 marked "dead" :) <tp> It's a zombie that keeps on coming out of the grave. Note that that list is only for yang-1.1 issues; roll on yang-1.2, yang-2.0 etc; or roll back to the issues that predated yang-1.1. The WGs, several in the Routing Area, that have used float in their protocols need either to define their own type or to come up with one or more ways of representing it with the existing types or not model that part of the protocol or ... I see this issue as good for a few years yet:-) Tom Petch Interesting to see that ODL used base64 (https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/BGP_LS_PCEP:Troubleshooting) here. Dhruv > -----Original Message----- > From: t.petch [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 29 September 2015 14:34 > To: Dhruv Dhody; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Pce] Encoding in draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware > > Just the obvious comment that while consistency within PCE is good, yet > YANG shows no signs of being able to model floating point values. > > Tom Petch > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dhruv Dhody" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 1:21 PM > Subject: [Pce] Encoding in draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware > > > Hi All, > > In the service-aware draft [1], the new metric type encoding were > similar to the IGP ([2][3]) encoding with 24-bits integer format. > > In this we deviated from RFC5440 [4] and other metric types where the > metric value is always encoded in 32-bits in IEEE floating point format > [5]. > > The authors discussed and wanted to align it to the rest of PCEP and > use 32-bits floating point instead. > > Please find the attached update and the diff file for your reference. > > WG, please let us know if you disagree with this change. > > [1] > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware- > 07#section > -4.1.1.1 > [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7471 > [3] > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-te-metric- > extensions > -07.txt > [4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5440#section-7.8 > [5] http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/opac?punumber=4610933 > > Regards, > Dhruv (on behalf of co-authors) > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - > - > -------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pce mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
