[CCAMP] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-14: (with DISCUSS)

Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 08 April 2019 10:13 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FA0B1202CD; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 03:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability@ietf.org, Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com, ccamp@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.94.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <155471841105.6393.10821256003431720439.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 03:13:31 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/8AStir1MjBtt2_n79opg6LQGt2Y>
Subject: [CCAMP] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-14: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 10:13:31 -0000

Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-14: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 3.1:

      Availability (4 octets): a 32-bit floating point number describes
      the decimal value of availability requirement for this bandwidth
      request. The value MUST be less than 1and is usually expressed in
      the value of 0.99/0.999/0.9999/0.99999.

It appears that this format has some very clear limitations when it comes to
store availability numbers. Assuming that this 32-bit float is an IEEE-754
representation which should be explicitly stated.

In that case representing availabilities higher than 0.999999 starts to
introduce significant errors in relation to intended precision. Intended value
Error                                             Actual value 0.999999        
 -1.3278961181640625E-8              0.999998986721038818359375 0.9999999      
 -1.920928955078125E-8                0.99999988079071044921875 0.99999999     
1E-8                                                   1 (Which is not allowed)

So at a minimal the limitations for what is practical to express needs to be
provided. Secondly, are this range sufficient in all cases?