[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?
- [CCAMP] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf… Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker
- Re: [CCAMP] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-… Yemin (Amy)
- Re: [CCAMP] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-… Magnus Westerlund